A major current focus of litigation brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) has to do with excessive fees charged to participants in their employers’ 401(k) and 403(b) defined contribution plans. […]
Congress enacted the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) law to protect . . . participants in employee benefit plans and their beneficiaries, by requiring the disclosure and reporting to participants and beneficiaries of financial and other information with respect thereto, by establishing standards of conduct, responsibility, and obligation for fiduciaries of employee benefit plans, and by providing for appropriate remedies, sanctions, and ready access to the Federal Courts. […]
In cases brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the standard of judicial review applied by the district court is critical to the outcome of the litigation, and when the district court makes factual findings, courts of appeals review those findings under the clear error standard. […]
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act permits aggrieved individuals whose employee benefit claims have been denied to bring a civil action to recover benefits claimed to be due […]
A concurrence to a Sept. 22 opinion issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit[1] in a case involving a health insurance raises serious concerns about the manner in which courts review benefit claim denials under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act […]
What is contra proferentem? Carlile v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co.[1] is a textbook illustration of the doctrine that construes ambiguities in insurance policies in favor of the insured and against the insurer. In February, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District […]