If you have an interest in both ERISA and in well written, logical judicial opinions, I can’t recommend highly enough this opinion, by Judge Gertner of the United States District Court for Massachusetts, in Bendaoud v. Hodgson, deciding a number of issues at the motion to dismiss stage. I have a trial starting on
Benefit Litigation
Recent Case Law on Extra-Administrative Discovery After Glenn
By Stephen Rosenberg on
Posted in Benefit Litigation, Conflicts of Interest
When people start emailing you to inquire about your health, you know you have been away from your blog too long. Rumors of my demise, however, were premature, as I was simply on vacation; normally I keep up with developments and am able to put up some posts while away, but I didn’t get a…
Using Up My Fifteen Seconds of Fame
By Stephen Rosenberg on
There were a lot of things on my desk I could post about today, but I am going to take the easy – and self-promoting – way out, and pass along this article from Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly on the W.R. Grace decision out of the First Circuit on the question of standing in ERISA cases,…
Notes for a Friday
By Stephen Rosenberg on
Some More Thoughts on the Primacy of the ERISA Plan Document
By Stephen Rosenberg on
Judge Gertner of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has an interesting, if brief, ruling that is just out granting a motion to dismiss a severance pay claim under an ERISA governed plan. What caught my eye about it relates back to this post I wrote a few weeks ago, in…
What Effect Does MetLife v. Glenn Have on Discovery in Denial of Benefit Claims?
By Stephen Rosenberg on
Apparently none, at least according to the first ruling on this question I have seen out of a court in the First Circuit. In a ruling by a magistrate judge, the United States District Court for the District of Maine has concluded that MetLife v. Glenn does not change the rules in the First Circuit…
Promises, Promises . . .
By Stephen Rosenberg on
Rob Hoskins over at the always interesting ERISABoard has an interesting story about a Second Circuit decision that essentially says “too bad” to a plan participant’s waiver/estoppel theory seeking benefits. The story is consistent with what seems to be a trend in which courts frequently fall back to the terms of the actual plan to…
On Intoxication and Accidental Death and Dismemberment Policies
By Stephen Rosenberg on
I wrote a long time back about Stamp v. MetLife, a decision out of the United States District Court for Rhode Island on a particular, oft litigated, and unfortunately frequently repeated fact pattern: namely, whether an unwitnessed automobile accident causing death of an apparently intoxicated driver constituted an accident for purposes of ERISA governed…
A Brief List of Things Worth Reading
By Stephen Rosenberg on
Even when trying cases, I have never had a week so busy since launching the blog that I haven’t been able to find time to post. David Rossmiller likes to say that work is the curse of the blogging class, but even when really busy, I have always found writing up a blog post…
Two More ERISA Cases for the Supreme Court?
By Stephen Rosenberg on
The good folks who write the SCOTUS blog are engaged in one of their periodic attempts to read the tea leaves and predict what cases the Supreme Court will choose to hear. This time, they think the Court will review two ERISA cases, Geddes v. United Staffing – which concerns the standard of review…