Phia Group Russo & Minchoff

Supreme Court Reverses Lower Courts and Restores ERISA Plan’s Discretion

bhoffman | August 27, 2010

Employer’s Guide to Self-Insuring Health Benefits, Thompson Publishing Group
Employers and other plan administrators are due greater deference in their benefits plan decisions than some lower courts have allowed, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled after admonishing two lower courts for failing to follow the High Court’s prior decisions establishing ERISA law on plan administration.
The High Court [...]

McCauley v. First Unum Life Insurance Co.

Adam V. Russo | July 9, 2010

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Glenn, the Second Circuit has reassessed its standard of review governing cases that challenge an ERISA plan administrator’s decision to deny disability benefits in cases where the administrator has a conflict of interest because it has the discretionary authority to determine the validity of the employee’s claim [...]

Supreme Court Rules on Pension Plan Administration Case

Adam V. Russo | June 17, 2010

From the Bench; By John H. Eggerstsen, Esq. and Michael Friedman, Esq.
This month’s From the Bench will review just one case-the U.S. Supreem Court’s most recent ERISA decision, Conkwright v. Frommert, No. 08-810 (April 21,2010). Amidst all the heady intensity surrounding the recently passed health care reform legislation, it is salutary perhaps to realize that [...]

Plan Administrator – One Strike, You’re Safe

Adam V. Russo | May 24, 2010

On April 21, 2010, in the case of Conkright v. Frommert, 559 U.S. ___ (2010), the United States Supreme Court held that where a plan administrator is granted deference in exercising its discretionary authority, and the administrator subsequently issued an incorrect interpretation related to the plan document, absent malice, the plan administrator is not disqualified [...]

Supreme Court Affirms That Plan Administrators’ Interpretations of a Plan Document Must Receive Deference

Adam V. Russo | May 4, 2010

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Conkright v. Frommert decision is an important confirmation of a plan administrator’s authority to interpret the terms of a benefit plan and serves as a reminder for plan sponsors to review the terms of their benefit plans to ensure that they contain sufficient discretionary language.

Military Exclusion

Adam V. Russo | July 28, 2009

In MacLeod v. Proctor & Gamble Disability Benefit Plan, 460 F. Supp. 2d 340 (D. Conn. 2006) the administrator denied the participant’s application for benefits on the grounds that the claimed disability resulted from the participant’s prior military service and therefore was excluded from coverage. At oral argument, the administrator admitted that its decision was [...]

U.S. Supreme Court Sides with Divorcee

Adam V. Russo | March 20, 2009

from The Advocate Staff of The Connecticut Post
Updated: 03/07/2009 08:09:09 AM EST
It’s rare for the U.S. Supreme Court to opine on retirement plan beneficiary designations, so when it does, it’s newsworthy. A few weeks ago, the court decided a case, Kennedy v. DuPont Savings and Investment Plan, that involved whether a form as benign as [...]

Two More Federal Circuits Consider Impact of Glenn Decision on Standard of Review

Adam V. Russo | January 9, 2009

Champion v. Black & Decker Inc., 2008 WL 5377692 (4th Cir. 2008)
McCauley v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5377680 (2nd Cir. 2008)

A Key Post MetLife v. Glenn Decision in 2nd Circuit

Adam V. Russo | January 5, 2009

McCauley v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 26094 (2nd Cir.) (December 24, 2008) is an important post MetLife v. Glenn decision in the Second Circuit. The Court found First Unum’s past history as being a factor in evaluating a conflict of interest.
The Court mentioned the fact that First Unum had a [...]

Allianz 9/11 Subrogation Rights

Adam V. Russo | June 19, 2008

U.S. District court Judge Harold Baer has ruled that Allianz S.E. is primarily entitled to recoveries from third parties found liable for damages from the Sept.11, 2001 terrorist attacks.  World Trade Center leaseholder Silverstein Properties Inc. challenged the ruling claiming that the $433 million settlement of the $3.55 billion property limit from Allianz S.E. last [...]

Medical Treatment Before Accident Won’t Change Plan’s Right to Recovery

Adam V. Russo | April 21, 2008

The fact that an individual had medical treatment for a condition before an accident and subsequently suffered an injury that required additional treatment should not defeat a plan’s right to reimbursement for benefits paid on account of the treatment resulting from the accident. A U.S. District Court reached that conclusion in Schaffer v. Mancini, 2007 [...]