May 06, 2022

The Friday Five: Five Current ERISA Litigation Highlights - May 2022

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Subscribe now to get unlimited access to all OnPractice content. Your subscription is free.
Subscribe Now

This month's Friday Five covers cases relating to a claimant's second chance when a lawyer misses a court deadline, whether certain voluntary benefits fall within a broader ERISA plan, a court deciding that an insurer was "probably not wrong," judicial reconsideration to mold the time period for benefits awarded, and an insurer's duty to consider particular hazards of a claimant's occupation.

The Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr Employee Benefits/ERISA Litigation Team

  1. Claimant Granted Another Chance After Attorney Misses Filing Deadline. In a recent life insurance dispute, the court granted the insurer's motion for judgment on the pleadings uncontested after the claimant failed to file a timely response. But, a few days after dismissing the case, the claimant asked for a second chance, which the court allowed. Apparently, the claimant's counsel marked the incorrect response deadline on the calendar, which resulted in the missed filing. The court, in a rather colorful opinion, noted that "[m]istakes happen. That's true in life, and it's true in the practice of law (to the extent that's not real life)." As such, the court refused to detriment the client for counsel's inadvertent mistake and reopened the case to allow a decision on the merits. Fuhrer v. The Hartford Life & Accid. Ins. Co., No. 21-5040, 2022 WL 970848 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2022).
  2. Court Determines Separate and Voluntary AD&D Policy Falls Within Larger ERISA Plan After Initially Triggering Safe Harbor. In an accident death and dismemberment (AD&D) benefits case, the insurer denied a claim for AD&D benefits under a provision excluding coverage for death while intoxicated. The parties first sparred over a motion to dismiss state court claims related to the AD&D policy, which was a voluntary add-on benefit for employees to choose (and pay for). The court first decided, in favor of the plaintiff, that the AD&D policy fell under an ERISA safe harbor exempting benefits that are paid for solely by the employee, among other requirements. Later in the opinion, the court backtracked in favor of the insurer and decided that the AD&D policy was still part of the overall ERISA plan offered by the employer, which brought the AD&D policy back within ERISA's governance. According to the court, because the voluntary AD&D plan was so closely related to, and integrated in, the overall employer plan, it was part of the larger benefits scheme. As such, the court determined that ERISA preempted the state court claims and granted the insurer's motion to dismiss. Garrity v. Sun Life & Health Ins. Co., No. 20-1334, 2022 WL 972290 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 21, 2022).
  3. Court Decides that Insurer was "Probably Not Wrong," Which was Enough to Win Summary Judgment. In a long-term disability benefits case, the claimant was approved and received benefits for approximately six years, when the insurer terminated benefits due to lack of support for continued disability. The insurer relied on a lack of support from treating physicians, independent medical reviews, surveillance footage and other sources to terminate the claim. Even though the plaintiff continued to receive Social Security Disability Benefits and had some support in the record, the court decided that "[t]he challenged benefits decision was probably not wrong, and it was certainly not ‘arbitrary and capricious.'" While the court did not provide an exceedingly glowing endorsement of the correctness of the insurer's decision, it still granted summary judgment in the insurer's favor. Boatwright v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., No. 20-2165, 2022 WL 1015785 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 4, 2022).
  4. Court Grants Remand to Determine Whether Benefits Should Extend to Time of Judgment. The plaintiff in a long-term disability benefits case won summary judgment in March 2022, where the court determined that she was due benefits. The court, however, did not delineate whether the insurer erred in its determination that the plaintiff was not disabled up to the time of judgment in March 2022, or whether the determination only extended through August 2020, when the administrative record closed. Despite the plaintiff's attempts to block the remand, including various procedural challenges, the court agreed with the insurer that there was a lack of evidence to evaluate the plaintiff's disability between the close of the administrative record and date of judgment. Therefore, the court ordered a remand for the insurer to evaluate disability during the intervening period. Chicco v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., No. 20-10593, 2022 WL 973733 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2022).
  5. Insurer Must Consider Specific Occupational Duties in Deciding Disability Claim. In a recent long-term disability dispute, the plaintiff worked for a logistics company and drove large, eighteen-wheel tractor trailers containing heavy materials around the country. The plaintiff relied on strict federal regulations and company safety standards, and the inherent stressors of the job, to argue that his anxiety, which worsened after an on-the-job collision with a bus on the highway, prevented him from performing his own occupation. The court agreed with the plaintiff and found that it was irrational of the insurer to ignore the mental capacity necessary for truck drivers to safely perform their jobs, and, in particular, federal regulations that set forth the emotional requirements of a driver to handle commercial driving responsibilities. The court ultimately capped long-term disability benefits based on the 24-month mental disorder limitation in the policy. Whetstone v. United of Omaha

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr

Top 20 Negotiation Tips: #14 and #15

By Steven N. Malitz Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr May 09 , 2022

In this episode of “The Entrepreneur Advisor,” Steven Malitz continues his Top 20 Countdown of the best negotiation tips for businesses.

OIG Permits FQHC to Loan Smartphones to Patients to Receive Telehealth Services

By Samantha R. Gross Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr May 06 , 2022

On April 28, 2022, the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) published Advisory Opinion 22-08 in which the OIG declined to impose sanctions against a federally qualified health center (“Requestor”).

New Jersey Department of Community Affairs Opens 60-Day Comment Period for Forthcoming Warehouse Solar Regulations

By Melissa A. Clarke Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr May 04 , 2022

On May 2, 2022, the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (“DCA”) announced a 60-day comment period whereby interested parties may submit written comments to the DCA in response to upcoming amendments to the Uniform Construction Code’s Energy Subcode, N.J.A.C. 5:23-3.18.

More From Insurance

NAIC Continues to Refine Multiyear Work Plan to Expand Scrutiny of Holding Company Act Filings

By Andrea T. Best McDermott Will & Emery May 05 , 2022

In our report published on April 26, 2022, we discussed the New York Department of Financial Services’ (NYDFS) Circular Letter No. 5 in which it reminded the industry that acquiring less than 10% of an insurer’s voting securities does not necessarily mean that the acquirer (1) is not a “controller” and (2) does not have to submit a Form A application to the insurer’s home state or domestic regulator seeking approval for the change of control. This topic is one of several related matters that various committees, task forces and working groups of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) are studying and will continue to study over a multiyear period (the Project).

Climate Change Regulatory Update for US Insurers: April 2022

By Thomas M. Dawson McDermott Will & Emery April 27 , 2022

If anyone believed that the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) release of proposed climate change-related disclosure requirements last month might have been an isolated matter, of immediate importance only to the approximately 110 insurers that are SEC registrants, developments during the past month paint a different picture. In early April, state insurance regulators in favor of requiring insurers to provide climate risk disclosure in line with the SEC’s direction achieved only partial success; however, last week, Connecticut joined New York by proposing a comprehensive climate change regulatory framework for insurers.

Featured Stories