Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff brought this declaratory judgment action, asserting that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., preempted a state court order requiring him to turn over benefits received under ERISA retirement and life insurance plans owned by his deceased ex-wife. At issue was whether ERISA prohibited a state court from ordering plaintiff, who had previously waived his right to those benefits, to relinquish them to the administrators of the ex-wife's estate. The court held that ERISA did not preempt post-distribution suits against ERISA beneficiaries because the court detected no conflict with either ERISA's objectives or relevant Supreme Court precedent. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Andochick v. Byrd" on Justia Law

Petitioner Jose Cardoza brought this lawsuit pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), to challenge United of Omaha Life Insurance Company’s calculation of his long-term disability benefits (LTD benefits). United of Omaha answered, asserting its calculation was appropriate, and counterclaimed, demanding that Petitioner reimburse it for payments of short-term disability benefits (STD benefits) which it claimed were miscalculated. On cross-motions, the district court granted Petitioner's motion for summary judgment and denied United of Omaha’s motion, concluding United of Omaha’s decision to calculate Petitioner's LTD benefits and recalculate his STD benefits as it did was arbitrary and capricious. United of Omaha appealed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court erred in granting Petitioner's motion for summary judgment with respect to United of Omaha’s LTD benefits calculation: "[t]he plain language of the long-term disability benefits policy instructed United of Omaha to base its calculation of Cardoza’s LTD benefits on his earnings as verified by the premium it received. Thus, United of Omaha’s decision to do so was reasonable and made in good faith." The district court did not err, however, in granting Petitioner's motion for summary judgment with respect to United of Omaha’s recalculation of his STD benefits and demand for reimbursement "United of Omaha’s decision to recalculate Cardoza’s STD benefits based on his earnings verified by premium rather than his actual earnings was not reasonable." The Court therefore reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Cardoza v. United of Omaha Life Insurance" on Justia Law

The Fund, a multi-employer pension plan under ERISA, has a Plan, providing for administration by a Board with authority to make benefit determinations and amend the Plan, including retroactively. No amendment may result in reduced benefits for any participant whose rights have vested, except in specified circumstances. Price began receiving Plan disability benefits under the “Total and Permanent Disability Benefit” category in 1990, after work-related injuries left him unable to work. In 2001, the Fund notified Price that he no longer qualified for benefits under this category, but that he could continue receiving benefits under provisions for “Occupational Disability Benefit.” His benefits were discontinued after 2006, according to an Amendment. Price became eligible for early retirement in 2012. The Board rejected an appeal. The district court granted Price judgment in his suit under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B). On remand from the Sixth Circuit, for review determination of vesting under the arbitrary and capricious standard, the judge again ruled in favor of Price. The Sixth Circuit again reversed; the court failed to look to the terms of the plan but instead found that because the Board’s decision letter did not discuss whether the benefits vested, the Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. View "Price v. Bd. of Trs. of IN Laborers' Pension Fund" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a partner in a medical practice where she served as a staff anesthesiologist. When Plaintiff's dependence on opioids came to light, her employer had in force a group employee benefit plan, underwritten and administered by Union Security Insurance Company & Management Company for Merrimack Anesthesia Associates Long Term Disability Plan (USIC), which included long-term disability (LTD) benefits. When Plaintiff applied for those benefits, USIC refused to pay benefits past the point when Plaintiff was discharged from a treatment center, finding that Plaintiff's risk for relapse was not the same as a current disability. Plaintiff brought suit in the federal district court. The district court ultimately awarded Plaintiff LTD benefits for the maximum time available under the plan, concluding that categorically excluding the risk of drug abuse relapse was an unreasonable interpretation of the plan. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, in an addiction context, a risk of relapse can be so significant as to constitute a current disability. View "Colby v. Union Sec. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In this case, participants in the Thunderbird Mining Company Pension Plan sought "shutdown" pension benefits. The PBGC, the government agency that administered pension termination insurance under Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001-1461, denied the participants' request. These early retirement benefits were triggered by a permanent shutdown of a plant and were payable to plan participants who met certain age and years-of-service requirements. The court held that the agency's determination was not arbitrary or capricious where the record provided sufficient support for the agency's judgment that a permanent shutdown had not occurred before Eveleth's pension plan was terminated on July 24th, 2003. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the agency. View "United Steel, et al. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp." on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a dispute between Unum and the late Kevin Sullivan over long-term disability benefit payments. Sullivan sued Unum, arguing that the termination of his benefits violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., and Unum counterclaimed for overpayment of benefits. The court concluded that it was not an abuse of discretion for the administrator to determine that the large payments that Sullivan received in 2004 were payments for the sale of a business for the purpose of calculating his benefits. Unum asserted that the payments were salary, not income. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment and award of attorney's fees, remanding for consideration of Unum's counterclaims. View "Sullivan v. Unum Life Ins. Co., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Plan on his claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Plaintiff asserted that the Plan did not comply with procedures set out by ERISA by changing its basis for denial on administrative appeal and by not identifying the independent physician reviewer who recommended denial on administrative appeal. Because plaintiff did not specify the failure to identify the physician in his amended complaint, the court did not address this issue. The court agreed with plaintiff, however, that the Plan did not substantially comply with ERISA procedures by changing its basis for denying coverage on administrative appeal. The court concluded that remand to the Plan for a full and fair review was appropriate. View "Rossi v. Precision Drilling Oilfield Svcs. Corp. Emp. Benefits Plan" on Justia Law

A third-party administrator of medical benefits plans, IMA, denied claims made on behalf of two patients who received treatment from the same medical provider, LifeCare. The court held that IMA incorrectly interpreted the plans because it categorized LifeCare as a skilled nursing facility (SNF) without finding that LifeCare "fully meets all of" the plans' seven SNF factors. IMA abused its discretion because categorizing LifeCare as an SNF without considering the seven-factors SNF test contradicted the plain language of the plans. The court found that the district court correctly held that LifeCare could maintain an action against IMA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B) and that IMA was liable for exercising actual control over the claims process. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees. View "Lifecare Mgmt. Svcs., LLC v. Ins. Mgmt. Admins. Inc, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former software developer for Lockheed Martin Corporation, brought this action for judicial review after Connecticut General terminated his disability benefits in 2007. The court held that the district court properly applied an abuse of discretion standard; on the record, it was not an abuse of discretion to terminate plaintiff's benefits; and the district court did not err in denying plaintiff an opportunity to depose the expert at issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Siegel v. Connecticut General Life Ins., et al" on Justia Law

In 1992 Navistar attempted to reduce its costs for retired employee health and life insurance benefits. Navistar’s retirement benefit plan is a registered employee health benefit plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 and Navistar is both plan administrator and fiduciary. In 1993, the district court entered judgment in a class action challenging the change, adopting an agreement between the parties and retaining jurisdiction. The Agreement established the Retiree Health Benefit and Life Insurance Plan. The Plan established the Health Benefit Program Summary Plan Description, which contains a description of the health benefits and is furnished to all beneficiaries. The Agreement divides health benefits into two plans: Plan 2 for those eligible for Medicare and Plan 1 for those who are not eligible. A prescription drug benefit was provided under the Agreement, identical for both Plan 1 and Plan 2. When Navistar moved to substitute Medicare Part D into the Plan, class members claimed violation of the Agreement. The district court ordered Navistar to reinstate, retroactively, the prescription drug benefit that was in effect before Navistar made the unilateral substitution. The Sixth Circuit affirmed,View "Shy v. Navistar Int'l Corp." on Justia Law