A federal court in Virginia recently confronted a situation that arises with some degree of regularity: a judgment is entered by a court, the loser files a notice of appeal and then offers to settle the case, but imposes as a condition of the settlement that the judgment be vacated.
A federal judge recently looked beyond the claim record and into a reviewer’s wallet in concluding that an insurer improperly terminated disability benefits.
A recent 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals case could aptly be entitled ”Halpin Redux,” since the decision was written by Judge Kenneth F. Ripple, who penned Halpin v. W.W. Grainger Inc., 962 F.2d 685 (7th Cir. 1992), and the case covers the identical ground.
In Schneider v. Sentry Group Long Term Disability Plan, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 19273 (7th Cir., Sept. 7), an employee of Sentry Life began receiving disability benefits in 2001 due to major depression.
In this short but fascinating ruling, a federal court in Florida analyzed defendant Unum Life Insurance Co.’s motion for a protective order after the plaintiff issued notices to depose Unum claims employees and one of the insurer’s doctors. The claimed basis for the protective order was Unum’s contention that the depositions would not lead to […]
The disability insurance policy at issue in a federal court decision acknowledged that the insurer was a fiduciary and had discretion to determine eligibility for benefits and construe the policy terms. The policy further stated that ERISA fiduciaries ”have an obligation to administer the plan prudently and to act in the interest of you and other plan participants and beneficiaries.”