Sign Up for Case Law Summary Newsletters at the
FindLaw Newsletter Subscription Center


Search : ERISA

Number of summaries found: 1137
Search For More Summaries

Court: U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Topic: Administrative Law, Drugs & Biotech, ERISA, Labor & Employment Law
Title: Bandak v. Eli Lilly & Co. Retirement Plan
Date: 11/18/09
Case Number: 09-1620
Summary: Judgment in favor of plaintiff in his ERISA suit against his former employer's retirement plan is affirmed as defendant's rejection of plaintiff's claim was not substantially justified in reducing his benefits under a 1997 amendment after he transferred from the United Kingdom to the US affiliate.

Court: U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
Topic: Civil Procedure, ERISA, Health Law, Labor & Employment Law
Title: Brown v. J.B. Hunt Transp. Servs., Inc.
Date: 11/17/09
Case Number: 08-3803
Summary: In an ERISA action based on the discontinuation of plaintiff's long-term disability (LTD) benefits, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where defendant-insurer could not be held liable for statutory penalties because 29 U.S.C. section 1132(c) only provided a cause of action against plan administrators. However, the order is reversed in part where defendant's failure to comply with its duty under section 1133(2) to provide plaintiff with "a reasonable opportunity for a full and fair review" of defendant's decision to discontinue plaintiff's LTD benefits excused plaintiff's failure to exhaust before bringing suit under section 1132(a).

Court: U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
Topic: Administrative Law, Attorney's Fees, Civil Procedure, ERISA, Injury And Tort Law, Remedies
Title: Longaberger Co. v. Kolt
Date: 11/16/09
Case Number: 08-4432
Summary: In an action by an ERISA governed, self-funded employee welfare benefit plan seeking to enforce the terms of the Plan's reimbursement provisions against defendant-attorney and his client who had recovered tort settlement funds, summary judgment for plaintiff-plan is affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly granted plaintiff equitable restitution as authorized by section 502(a)(3) of ERISA; 2) defendant's judicial estoppel argument fails as it is not applicable where a party argues an inconsistent position based on a change in controlling law; 3) district court ruled correctly that the Plan was self-executing and that the Plan language provides for an automatic and valid lien on the settlement funds to the extent of the benefits defendant's client received from the Plan; and 4) defendant is obligated to reimburse the Plan from the funds he received from liable third parties, and his decision to commingle these funds and not maintain them intact does not prevent enforcement of plaintiff's equitable lien by agreement under the terms of its ERISA plan.

Court: U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
Topic: Administrative Law, Contracts, ERISA, Health Law, Insurance Law, Labor & Employment Law
Title: Kovach v. Zurich American Ins. Co.
Date: 11/13/09
Case Number: 08-4512
Summary: In plaintiff's ERISA suit against an insurance company for denying his claim for dismemberment benefits arising from a drunk-driving motorcycle accident, summary judgment for defendant-plan administrator is reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiffs where: 1) defendant's decision to deny benefits to the plaintiffs was contrary to the everyday meaning of the word "accidental" as it would be understood by a typical policyholder, and was based almost entirely on a body of largely distinguishable district court cases; 2) plaintiff's injuries were not "highly likely to occur" as a result of his intoxication, in contrast to the injuries that were highly likely to occur under the facts in Lennon; 3) defendant's interpretation of the Plan's provisions amounts to an additional, unwritten exclusion for all drunk-driving injuries, which is not permitted under even the most deferential standard of review; and 4) defendant's denial of coverage based on plaintiff's injuries being non-accidental was unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious.

Court: U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Topic: Administrative Law, ERISA, Government Law, Labor & Employment Law
Title: Wetzler v. Illinois CPA Soc'y & Found. Retirement Income Plan
Date: 11/10/09
Case Number: 08-2923
Summary: In plaintiff's ERISA suit against the Illinois CPA Society & Foundation Retirement Income Plan (Plan) for denying his request for a lump-sum distribution, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court applied the correct standard of review to both the administrator's interpretation of the terms of the Plan and the legal determination of whether the plan violated the anti-cutback provisions of ERISA; 2) administrator's interpretation of the plan such that a lump-sum benefits was not available to plaintiff prior to Amendment One is well-reasoned and not arbitrary and capricious; 3) Amendment One did not eliminate an "optional form of benefit" and does not violate ERISA's anti-cutback provision because the plan participants were not entitled, under the Plan, to a lump-sum distribution; and 4) administrator's decision to deny a lump-sum distribution to plaintiff was not arbitrary and capricious as it would have put the Plan in deficit and would have violated the Internal Revenue Code, thus risking the tax status of the plan for all of its participants.

Court: U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
Topic: ERISA, Labor & Employment Law
Title: Sunder v. U.S. Bancorp Pension Plan
Date: 11/09/09
Case Number: 07-3485
Summary: In an ERISA action seeking additional retirement benefits under defendant's retirement plan, an award of damages against defendant on the ground that plaintiffs' accrued benefits were decreased by the conversion of the plan into a cash balance system is reversed where neither ERISA nor the terms of the plan precluded defendant from calculating the opening cash balances using the plan's discount rate. Adverse rulings against plaintiffs regarding the determination of the date of the plan conversion and on their ERISA age discrimination claim are affirmed on cross appeal.

Court: U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
Topic: ERISA, Labor & Employment Law
Title: Scruggs v. ExxonMobil Pension Plan
Date: 11/09/09
Case Number: 08-6145
Summary: In an ERISA action seeking retroactive pension and savings benefits allegedly owed to plaintiff under two of defendants' employee benefits plans, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the plan administrator's denial of plaintiff's claim for benefits was not arbitrary or capricious because, inter alia, plaintiff was ineligible for benefits under the Plans as an independent contractor.

Court: U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
Topic: Civil Procedure, ERISA, Labor & Employment Law
Title: McCullough v. AEGON USA, Inc.
Date: 11/03/09
Case Number: 08-1952
Summary: In an ERISA action alleging that various employee benefit plan fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties to the plan and engaged in prohibited transactions, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where 29 U.S.C. section 1132(a)(2) did not permit the plaintiffs to bring suit because the plan's surplus was sufficiently large that the investment loss did not cause actual injury to plaintiffs' interests in the plan.

Court: U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
Topic: ERISA, Health Law
Title: Rasenack v. AIG Life Ins. Co.
Date: 11/02/09
Case Number: 07-1521
Summary: In an ERISA action against an insurer seeking disability benefits, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) the administrator failed to render a final decision within the time limits prescribed by the benefit plan and ERISA; and 2) the insurer's references to hemiparesis and the conclusions of the reviewing physicians did not provide a sufficient grounds for the denial of plaintiff's claim.

Court: U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
Topic: Administrative Law, ERISA, Health Law, Insurance Law, Labor & Employment Law
Title: Cox v. Standard Ins. Co.
Date: 10/29/09
Case Number: 08-2033
Summary: In plaintiff's ERISA case, district court's judgment on the administrative record approving defendant's discontinuance of plaintiff's long-term disability benefits is affirmed as, taking the record as a whole and applying the highly deferential arbitrary and capricious standard, defendant's decision appears to have been based on a principled and deliberative reasoning process.

Next 10 cases 

FindLaw Career Center

    Search for Law Jobs:

      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs
Ads by FindLaw