Search : U.S. Supreme Court : Insurance Law : From 10/01/05 To 07/01/06
Number of summaries found: 6
Search For More Summaries
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Bankruptcy Law, Debt Collection, ERISA, Injury And Tort Law, Insurance Law, Labor & Employment Law, Workers' Compensation |
| Title: | Howard Delivery Serv., Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. |
| Date: | 06/15/06 |
| Case Number: | 05–128 |
| Summary: | In the context of bankruptcy law, premiums owed by an employer to a workers' compensation carrier do not fit within 11 U.S.C. section 507(a)(5), which accords priorities, among unsecured creditors' claims, for unpaid contributions to "an employee benefit plan." |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Contracts, ERISA, Government Law, Injury And Tort Law, Insurance Law |
| Title: | Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh |
| Date: | 06/15/06 |
| Case Number: | 05–200 |
| Summary: | Dismissal, for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, of petitioner-carrier's suit seeking recovery from the proceeds of state-court litigation for a beneficiary's medical care is affirmed since 28 U.S.C. section 1331, authorizing jurisdiction over "civil actions arising under the...laws...of the United States," did not encompass the carrier's action. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | ERISA, Injury And Tort Law, Insurance Law, Remedies |
| Title: | Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Med. Servs., Inc. |
| Date: | 05/15/06 |
| Case Number: | 05–260 |
| Summary: | Judgment in favor of a health insurance plan administrator in its suit brought under ERISA seeking to collect medical expenses it had paid on defendants' behalf from a tort recovery they subsequently received is affirmed where, under the circumstances, section 502(a)(3) of ERISA authorized recovery as the relief requested by the administrator was "equitable" under the provision. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Admiralty, Constitutional Law, Government Law, Insurance Law |
| Title: | N. Ins. Co. of New York v. Chatham County, Georgia |
| Date: | 04/25/06 |
| Case Number: | 04–1618 |
| Summary: | An entity that does not qualify as an "arm of the State" for Eleventh Amendment purposes cannot assert sovereign immunity as a defense to an admiralty suit. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Admiralty, Constitutional Law, Government Law, Insurance Law |
| Title: | N. Ins. Co. of New York v. Chatham County, Georgia |
| Date: | 04/25/06 |
| Case Number: | 04–1618 |
| Summary: | An entity that does not qualify as an "arm of the State" for Eleventh Amendment purposes cannot assert sovereign immunity as a defense to an admiralty suit. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Attorney's Fees, Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Insurance Law, Remedies |
| Title: | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp. |
| Date: | 12/07/05 |
| Case Number: | 04–1140 |
| Summary: | Upon remand of a case to state court, absent unusual circumstances, attorney's fees should not be awarded under 28 U.S.C. section 1447(c) when the removing party has an objectively reasonable basis for removal; conversely, where no objectively reasonable basis exists, fees should be awarded. |