Archive for the ‘Supreme Court’ Category

By Andrea Davis

January 25, 2010

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a case that could have far-reaching implications for pension plan administrators and the way in which they interpret the terms of their plans.

“The justices were asking a lot of questions based on the particular facts of the case as opposed to the broader policy implications that this issue presents for all employers,” says Amy Covert, a partner in the labor and employment law department of Proskauer, who attended the session. Read more

By Ron E. Peck, Esq.

On April 30th, we posted a discussion of the ongoing Supreme Court case, MetLife (Metropolitan Life Insurance Company), et al. v. Wanda Glenn, 128 S.Ct. 1117.  To review, in that case the Court is questioning whether a deferential standard of review – the standard ordinarily applied by Courts reviewing ERISA administrator decisions when the Plan reserves discretionary authority – should be replaced by a more searching analysis when the administrator financially benefits from denials. Read more

By Ron E. Peck, Esq.

All eyes in the insurance industry should be turned towards the ongoing case of MetLife (Metropolitan Life Insurance Company), et al. v. Wanda Glenn, 128 S.Ct. 1117.  The United States Supreme Court granted cert in this matter on January 18, 2008, and oral arguments were heard on April 23, 2008.  This case comes before the Supreme Court on appeal from the Sixth Circuit decision in Glenn v. MetLife (Metro. Life Ins. Co.), 461 F.3d 660 (6th Cir. 2006). Read more

The Supreme Court held in LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates that ERISA §502(a)(2) authorizes recovery for fiduciary breaches that impair the value of plan assets in a participant’s individual account.

Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito joined. Roberts filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Kennedy joined. Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Scalia joined. Read more

The Supreme Court will be granting certiorari to MetLife, et al., v. Wanda Glenn.  While MetLife v. Glenn reinforces a third party administrator’s (”TPA”) right to make administrative decisions and interpret the terms of benefit plans when it is not the party funding the plan, this case asks whether a Plan Administrator faces a conflict of interest if it not only determines whether a claim is payable, but also pays the claim with its own funds. Read more