Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Retirees filed suit in district court contending that their retiree health benefits were vested and that defendant's intended modification would violate both the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B). Retirees subsequently appealed the denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction seeking continuation of certain healthcare benefits. The court held that the district court issued a thorough and well-reasoned opinion explaining in detail that the retirees failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion for preliminary injunction.

The district court certified a class action and a proposed class in an action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001. The suit claimed that Blue Cross breached its fiduciary duty by imposing and failing to disclose an other-than-group subsidy and that the OTG subsidy violated Mich. Comp. Laws 550.1211(2). The state insurance commissioner took the position that state law allows the assessment and that revenue it generates funds Medigap coverage. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the class action is not the superior method of adjudication (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)) and prosecuting separate actions does not present the risk of inconsistent adjudications (FRCP 23(b)(1)(A)). ERISA fiduciary status is a crucial threshold factual issue specific to every class member, requiring the court to make individualized determinations. Resolution of the legality of the subsidy before that determination would also mitigate the state's concerns about stopping collection of the fee. Potential awards at stake would not preclude individual class members from seeking relief and there was no evidence that individual litigation would create a risk of inconsistent adjudications that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the defendant.

The company previously gave retirees credit toward their share of health care costs, based on unused sick-leave. Union workers could take that sum in cash or put it toward the premium. Executives who quit before retirement, or decided not to participate in the plan, did not receive any other form of compensation for unused leave. It had value only as a credit toward retirement health-care costs. In 2008 the company amended the plan and stopped paying any part of retirees' health-care costs. Money for employees who could have taken their balances in cash is put in an account administered by the health-care plan. Retirees, including executives who never had an option to take balances in cash, plus one who had that option but elected to leave the money on deposit, filed suit under the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1081. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings to the company. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The company, which did not take anything out of the plan, but simply reduced the amount it would pay in, reserved the right to amend its health-care plan. It is a business decision, not a legal question, whether to use that authority to retireesâ detriment.

Plaintiffs appealed from a judgment of the district court dismissing their class-action complaint, which asserted a single claim against MetLife under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Plaintiffs alleged that through the use of "retained asset accounts" (RAAs), MetLife breached fiduciary duties imposed by ERISA by retaining and investing for its own profit life insurance proceeds due them under employee benefit plans that MetLife administered. The court held that the district court correctly determined that plaintiffs failed to state a claim, since MetLife discharged its fiduciary obligations under ERISA when it established the RAAs in accordance with the plans at issue, and did not misuse "plan assets" by holding and investing the funds backing the accounts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Employee, suffering depression and related disorders, received short-term disability benefits for 26 weeks. The administrator denied the employee long-term disability benefits. The district court ruled in favor of the employee in a suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C.1132(a)(1)(B) and denied the plan's claim for overpaid benefits. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded. The administrator acted consistently with a plan provision requiring it to determine whether employee was incapable of performing the requirements of any job for any employer ⦠for which the individual is qualified or may reasonably become qualified ⦠, other than a job that pays less than 60 percent of his former pay.The administrator acted without meaningful conflict of interest.The plan specifies the receipt of Social Security benefits as a particular fund from which reimbursement is to be made and gives rise to an equitable lien by agreement over those funds that are overpayments under the plan.

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal of his claim for benefits under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., where the district court held that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The court held that because plaintiff sought either current or future benefits, the plan provided an administrative procedure for his claim. The facts alleged in plaintiff's complaint showed neither futility nor the lack of an administrative remedy and therefore, the court concluded that he was required to exhaust his administrative remedies under the plan before he could bring a civil action in federal court.

After defendant denied plaintiff's claim for long-term disability benefits (LTD benefits), where plaintiff suffered from fibromyalgia, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant pursuant to ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1000 et seq. At issue was whether the district court properly granted summary judgment in plaintiff's favor finding that defendant had abused its discretion in denying benefits to plaintiff. The court held that the district court improperly determined that defendant abused its discretion when it ultimately denied the LTD benefits claim. Based on the record, there was more than a scintilla of evidence supporting defendant's conclusion that plaintiff's condition did not render him "disabled" under the policy's any occupation definition and defendant's decision was supported by substantial evidence, where a reasonable person could have reached a similar decision. The court also held that the fact that defendant operated under a structural conflict of interest, as both plan administrator and insurer, did not warrant a finding that defendant abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's claim. Accordingly, the court reversed summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

Appellant, the named beneficiary of an accident benefits plan that her husband obtained through his employer, brought suit under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., alleging that the plan administrator, Metropolitan Life Insurance (Metlife), abused its discretion in determining that her husband was intoxicated at the time of the accident and denying coverage. At issue was whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to Metlife because Metlife's interpretation of the relevant policies was arbitrary and capricious and not supported by substantial evidence. The court held that Metlife did not abuse its discretion as plan administrator when it denied benefits based on the general exclusion for intoxication that appeared in the certificate of insurance. The court also held that the toxicology report, which concluded that the husband's blood alcohol level was above the state limit, constituted evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion and therefore, satisfied the substantial evidence standard. The court also held that because it agreed with the district court's conclusion that the denial of benefits was justified in light of the intoxication conclusion, it need not address Metlife's assertion that the husband's death was not accidental because it was reasonably foreseeable or, alternatively, the result of intentional self-inflicted injury. Accordingly, summary judgment was affirmed.

Appellant appealed the district court's summary judgment on her ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B), claim to recover denied health care benefits and the magistrate judge's decision to limit discovery. At issue was the scope of admissible evidence and permissible discovery in an ERISA action to recover benefits under section 1132(a)(1)(B). The court held that the district court too narrowly defined the scope of discovery where appellant sought to discover evidence that would indicate whether the administrative record was complete, whether Blue Cross complied with ERISA's procedural requirements, and whether Blue Cross previously afforded coverage claims related to the jaw, teeth, or mouth. The court concluded that appellant's discovery request was at least reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of some admissible evidence and that the district court's abuse of discretion prejudiced appellant's ability to demonstrate that Blue Cross failed to comply with ERISA's procedural requirements. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings.

Appellants filed suit against nine pilots and their spouses asserting claims for equitable relief under 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3) of ERISA where appellants alleged that the pilots and their spouses obtained "sham" divorces for the purpose of obtaining lump sum pension distributions from the Continental Pilots Retirement Plan. At issue was whether ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1056(d)(1), allowed a retirement plan administrator to seek restitution of benefits that were paid to a plan participant's ex-spouse pursuant to a domestic relations order such as a divorce decree, if the administrator subsequently determined that the domestic relations order was based on a "sham" divorce. The court agreed with the district court's holding that subsection 1056(d)(3)(D)(i) did not authorize an administrator to consider or investigate the subjective intentions or good faith underlying a divorce. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of appellants' claims.