Last year I had the opportunity to attend a gathering of many of the ERISA litigators in Florida, both plaintiff and defense. One of the hot topics at that conference was a case known as Howard v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co. which was possibly going to be the vehicle for the Eleventh Circuit to clarify the rules of discovery in ERISA cases.
In my last blog post I overviewed the opposing arguments heard by the Supreme Court in U.S. Airways v. McCutchen. On April 16, 2013 the court handed down its decision: one clearly favorable to health insurance carriers seeking reimbursement of benefits paid from tort recoveries. Recall that the application of the “unjust enrichment” and “common […]
Most personal injury attorneys undoubtedly view ERISA liens arising out of group health insurance payments as the “800 pound gorilla” that can gut a client’s recovery or indeed dissuade a lawyer from taking a case in the first place.
In my previous post I briefly discussed the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in Cigna Corp. v. Amara. The question in that case was the scope of relief available under Section 502(a)(1)(B) compared to Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA.
For years the courts have struggled with the meaning of “appropriate equitable relief” in ERISA cases. Last year the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Cigna Corp. v. Amara, a case with far-reaching implications on the “equitable relief” front.
The scope of ERISA’s fiduciary duties was recently analyzed by the Eleventh Circuit in Cotton v. Massachusetts Mutual.