Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves two brothers, Levi and Benjamin Goldfarb, who sought payment of a $500,000 claim under an Accidental Death & Dismemberment insurance policy after their father, Dr. Alexander Goldfarb, died while mountain climbing in Pakistan. The insurer, Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, denied the claim because the cause of Dr. Goldfarb’s death was unknown, and therefore, his beneficiaries could not show that he died by accident. The Goldfarb brothers challenged the denial in district court under the Employee Retirement Security Act.The district court ruled in favor of the Goldfarbs, stating that Dr. Goldfarb’s death was accidental and that Reliance Standard’s failure to pay the Accidental Death & Dismemberment claim was arbitrary and capricious. The court granted summary judgment to the Goldfarbs and denied Reliance Standard’s cross motion for summary judgment. Reliance Standard appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit disagreed with the district court's decision. The appellate court found that Reliance Standard’s decision that Dr. Goldfarb’s death was not accidental under the insurance policy was supported by reasonable grounds, and the denial of the Goldfarbs’ claim for benefits was not arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, the court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Goldfarbs and directed the court to enter judgment in Reliance Standard’s favor. View "Goldfarb v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between American Compensation Insurance Company (ACIC) and Hector Ruiz, who operates Los Primoz Construction. Ruiz's employee, Raul Aparacio, suffered severe injuries after falling more than fifteen feet at a worksite. ACIC, which provided workers' compensation insurance for Ruiz's company, began paying benefits to Aparacio. However, when the payouts exceeded a quarter of a million dollars, ACIC sought to retroactively void the policy, alleging that Ruiz had materially misrepresented in his application that his company did not perform work more than fifteen feet above ground.The insurer filed for a declaratory judgment in federal court, but the federal district judge dismissed the insurer's lawsuit, concluding that Mississippi’s workers' compensation law does not permit an insurer to rescind a workers' compensation policy. The insurer appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which certified the question to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.The Supreme Court of Mississippi held that the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Act (MWCA) does not allow insurers to void a workers' compensation policy based on an employer's material misrepresentation. The court reasoned that the MWCA makes no provision for an insurer to void a workers' compensation policy based on a material misrepresentation and exists to ensure injured workers are compensated. The court concluded that allowing rescission would go against the purpose of the MWCA. View "American Compensation Insurance Company v. Ruiz" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a former coal miner, Richard McLain, who developed a serious lung condition after working underground for nearly two decades. McLain filed a claim under the Black Lung Benefits Act, alleging that his years of mine work had left him totally disabled from a pulmonary perspective. His former employer, Old Ben Coal Company, had been liquidated through bankruptcy, so Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, the surety guaranteeing Old Ben’s debts under the Act, contested liability on the coal company’s behalf.The case was initially heard by an administrative law judge (ALJ), who determined that McLain was disabled within the meaning of the Black Lung Benefits Act. The ALJ's decision was based on a thorough review of the medical record and a set of medical findings regarding how to distinguish between lung disorders arising from coal dust and those arising from tobacco smoke. Old Ben appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Benefits Review Board, arguing that the ALJ erroneously treated the 2001 preamble as if it were binding law and made factual findings unsupported by the medical record. The Review Board affirmed the benefits decision in full.The case was then brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The court affirmed the decision of the Benefits Review Board, emphasizing the broad discretion ALJs enjoy when evaluating competing medical theories, the weight ALJs may properly attribute to the perspective of the Department of Labor on such issues, and the significant deference owed to ALJs’ medical findings and scientific judgments on appeal. The court found no error in the ALJ's application of a regulatory preamble or in the factual findings that were challenged by Old Ben. View "Safeco Insurance/Liberty Mutual Surety v. OWCP" on Justia Law

The case involves Bristol SL Holdings, Inc., the successor-in-interest to Sure Haven, Inc., a defunct drug rehabilitation and mental health treatment center, and Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company and Cigna Behavioral Health, Inc. Bristol alleged that Sure Haven's calls to Cigna verifying out-of-network coverage and seeking authorization to provide health services created independent contractual obligations. Cigna, however, denied payment based on fee-forgiving, a practice prohibited by the health plans. Bristol brought state law claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel against Cigna.The district court initially dismissed Bristol’s claims, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, holding that Bristol had derivative standing to sue for unpaid benefits as Sure Haven’s successor-in-interest. On remand, the district court granted Cigna’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempted Bristol’s state law claims.On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Bristol’s state law claims were preempted by ERISA because they had both a “reference to” and an “impermissible connection with” the ERISA plans that Cigna administered. The court reasoned that Bristol’s claims were not independent of an ERISA plan because they concerned the denial of reimbursement to patients who were covered under such plans. The court also held that allowing liability on Bristol’s state law claims would interfere with nationally uniform plan administration, a central matter of plan administration. View "Bristol SL Holdings, Inc. v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The case involves Nancy Anaya-Smith, the next of kin of Michael Brian Smith, who was killed in a single-car accident while he was a passenger in a company vehicle owned by Fixtures & Drywall Company of Oklahoma (FADCO). The vehicle was being driven by Smith's coworker, Duane Clark. Anaya-Smith alleges that Clark's negligence caused the fatal accident. At the time of the accident, FADCO maintained an insurance policy with Federated Mutual Insurance Company (Federated). The policy provided up to $1,000,000 of liability coverage per accident and an additional $6,000,000 of liability coverage per accident under an umbrella policy. However, FADCO had rejected uninsured motorist (UM) coverage for all employees, except for its directors, officers, partners, owners, and their family members.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted summary judgment in favor of Federated, concluding that the vehicle was an uninsured vehicle at the time of the accident because Clark is immune from tort liability under the workers' compensation exclusive remedy provision, and that FADCO's policy providing UM coverage for some individuals who qualify as insureds but rejecting UM coverage for other insureds does not violate Oklahoma law. Anaya-Smith appealed from the summary judgment order.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma answered the first certified question in the affirmative, holding that the vehicle qualifies as an uninsured motor vehicle within the meaning of Oklahoma law. The court answered the second certified question in the negative, concluding that the plain language of Oklahoma law requires a named insured to either elect or reject uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage for all insureds under the policy, treating every insured in the same manner. The court declined to answer the third certified question as the record was undeveloped and the parties did not submit legal arguments pertaining to it. View "Anaya-Smith v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The case involves an employee, Braden Nanez, who was injured in an auto accident while off work and away from his job at a remote fire base camp. His employer, 3 Stonedeggs, Inc., expected employees not to leave the job site and to notify a manager if they did. Nanez did not notify a manager he was leaving camp. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (the Board) determined that under the commercial traveler rule, workers’ compensation coverage applied to Nanez's injuries. The Board found that Nanez’s use of his own car while off work to drive approximately 70 miles away from camp purportedly to obtain cellular service was conduct reasonably expected by his employer to be incident to its requirement that Nanez spend time away from home where cellular service was not adequately provided at the camp.The employer, 3 Stonedeggs, Inc., and its insurer, Technology Insurance Company, Inc., administered by Amtrust North America, petitioned for a writ of review, arguing that the Board acted in excess of its authority and that substantial evidence does not support the Board’s findings. They argued that Nanez was injured during a material deviation from his employment; he left the camp without employer approval on a personal activity that, under the unique circumstances of working at this remote fire camp, was not contemplated by the employer.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District denied the petition, finding that substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings. The court concluded that under the circumstances of Nanez’s age, his having his personal vehicle with him, the structure of his shifts, the remoteness of the camp, and his not being prohibited from using his vehicle during his off hours, it was reasonable for the employer to expect that Nanez would leave camp in his car during his off time as incident to being employed away from home. View "3 Stonedeggs, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board" on Justia Law

Donald Artz, an electric distribution controller at WEC Energy Group, retired due to multiple sclerosis (MS) and sought long-term disability benefits from a plan administered by Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company. Hartford denied his claim, asserting that Artz was not "disabled" within the plan's definition. Artz filed a lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, alleging that Hartford's disability determination was arbitrary and capricious because it misconstrued the plan's terms and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for its decision.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The district court upheld the denial of benefits at summary judgment, concluding that Artz had placed too much emphasis on the duties of his specific position at WEC rather than the "essential duties" of his job in the general workplace as required by the company’s plan. The court also underscored the independent medical reviews commissioned by Hartford and found the medical evidence supported the conclusion that Artz’s MS did not prevent him from working a standard 40-hour week as a power-distribution engineer.The case was then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that Hartford had communicated rational reasons for its decision based on a fair reading of the plan and Artz’s medical records. The court concluded that the plan administrator provided sufficient process and that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act requires no more. The court noted that while Artz's condition was serious, the evidence did not show that the severity and persistency of his symptoms resulted in functional impairment as defined by the policy. View "Artz v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Company" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho upheld a decision by the Idaho Industrial Commission that required an employer and its insurance company to pay the full amount of a medical invoice for an employee's workers' compensation claim, even though the employee's medical expenses were fully covered by Medicaid. The employee, Nickole Thompson, worked at Burley Inn, whose workers' compensation insurer was Milford Casualty Insurance Company. After Thompson suffered a work-related injury, Burley Inn and Milford denied her workers' compensation claim for a hip replacement surgery. Thompson underwent the surgery anyway, with Medicaid covering the cost.Thompson later filed a claim with the Industrial Commission, which found the hip replacement surgery was connected to her work injury and awarded her medical benefits based on the full invoice amount for the surgery. Burley Inn and Milford appealed the decision, arguing that the "full invoice" rule should not apply when Medicaid has already covered the medical expenses.The state Supreme Court, however, upheld the Commission's decision, asserting that excluding Medicaid recipients from the full invoice rule could encourage employers to deny workers' compensation claims of workers they suspect of being Medicaid recipients. The court also noted that the full invoice rule was consistent with Idaho's workers' compensation law and was intended to prevent employers from denying legitimate claims. The Court also concluded that the employer and insurer had standing to bring the appeal and that Thompson was not entitled to attorney fees on appeal. View "Thompson v. Burley Inn, Inc." on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between Zhen Feng Lin, a food delivery driver who was severely injured in a car accident, and his employer's insurance company, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company. After the accident, Lin received a settlement from the at-fault driver's insurance company, and workers' compensation benefits from his employer's insurance carrier, Hartford Fire Insurance Company. Lin later sought additional recovery under his employer's underinsured motorist policy with Hartford Accident.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision that Lin and Hartford Accident had not entered into a "settlement agreement" as defined by the insurance policy. As a result, the court ruled that the policy limits should be reduced by the amount Lin received in workers' compensation benefits. The court also agreed with the district court that Lin should be credited for the amount he paid to settle the workers' compensation lien.Additionally, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Lin's counterclaims for bad faith and breach of contract. The court found no plausible claim supporting the argument that Hartford Accident unreasonably delayed settling Lin's claim. Lin's request for statutory penalties for Hartford Accident's purported delay in handling his claim was also denied.Finally, the court denied both parties' motions for sanctions. Lin's appeal was deemed frivolous in part, but the court exercised its discretion not to impose sanctions. View "Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. Lin" on Justia Law

In this case, the Plaintiff, Barbara M. Parmenter, had subscribed to a long-term care insurance policy offered by her employer, Tufts University, and underwritten by The Prudential Insurance Company of America. The policy was governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. After Prudential twice increased Parmenter's premium rate payments for her policy, she sued Tufts and Prudential, alleging each breached their respective fiduciary duties owed to her when Prudential increased those rates. The defendants responded with motions to dismiss for failure to state a plausible claim. The district court granted each of their motions and Parmenter appealed.The United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit found that the language in the policy stating that premium increases would be "subject to the approval of the Massachusetts Commissioner of Insurance" was ambiguous, and could not be definitively interpreted based solely on the pleadings and contract documents currently available. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's decision to dismiss the case against Prudential and remanded it for further proceedings.However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the case against Tufts, as Parmenter's allegations that Tufts failed to prevent the premium rate increases or monitor Prudential did not fall into one of the categories of co-fiduciary liability set forth in section 1105(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. View "Parmenter v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America" on Justia Law