Courts strive to enforce the terms of benefit plans in order to ensure their efficient operation.However, there are times when the provisions of benefit plans make no sense under the circumstances; and Waskiewicz v. Unicare Life and Health Ins. Co., 2015 WL 5751585 (6th Cir. October 2, 2015) illustrates one of those circumstances. 

In Waskiewicz, a product design engineer for Fort Motor Company was unable to submit a timely claim for disability benefits due to her severe mental illness.  On account of the late submission, Ford’s claim administrator denied the claim, and a federal court upheld that denial.  However, a federal appellate court disagreed and ordered the plan to consider the claim.

The court found: “While [the plaintiff] did not comply with the notification deadlines outlined in Section 4.02 of the Plan, that failure is not surprising given that she was suffering from severe mental illness and was unable to comply due to the very disability for which she sought coverage.”The court thus deemed the denial “inconsistent with the spirit of employer-provided health care benefits generally and with this Plan specifically.” 

Although the court’s opinion was unsupported by citations to precedent, it was well-rooted in logic and common sense. It is encouraging to see a court give recognition to ERISA’s purpose and exercise its power to redress an obvious wrong.

Related Articles

Severance Pact Forecloses Right To Pursue Disability Claim Later

Severance Pact Forecloses Right To Pursue Disability Claim Later

Lawyers who represent employees in severance negotiations should be aware and take heed of the recent New York federal court ruling in Schuyler v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 2023 WL 2388757 (S.D. N.Y., March 7, 2023). That case illustrated a dangerous pitfall that may unwittingly result in unintended unfortunate consequences based on the court’s finding that an employee’s release of her employer also waived the employee’s right to sue her disability insurer. […]

The Important Role Of Contra Proferentem In ERISA Cases

The Important Role Of Contra Proferentem In ERISA Cases

The outcome of Employee Retirement Income Security Act cases often turns on how courts interpret the meaning of specific benefit plan terms. The recently decided case of Stein v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 16, illustrates what happens when plan terms are unclear and can have different meanings. […]

Courts Should Follow 8th Circ. On ERISA Procedure Rules

There is no provision in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 mandating that claimants must exhaust internal appeals as a precondition to filing a lawsuit to challenge a claim denial. Nonetheless, most courts have required claimants to exhaust prelitigation appeals before their cases may be heard in court. […]