CO Marriage and Self-Funded Group Question

[Guest alisonr]

I have a question that I am hoping someone might be able to help. We have a group that is self funded and headquartered out of NJ. The employer wants to know if they have to cover the common law marriage in CO and recognize it as a regular marriage. The employee had a Commitment ceremony that was witnessed by over 30 people and they signed the paperwork and had it recognized by the state of Colorado as a legal and binding marriage and they have completed the affidavidt but the group is not accepting this as proof of marriage. The information I have on the situation is limited but what I want to know is hether or not the group must recognize common law marriages and afford them the same access to coverage’s such as medical, rx and life insurance as they do others who comply with DOMA. Thanks!

[Chaz]

I have a question that I am hoping someone might be able to help. We have a group that is self funded and headquartered out of NJ. The employer wants to know if they have to cover the common law marriage in CO and recognize it as a regular marriage. The employee had a Commitment ceremony that was witnessed by over 30 people and they signed the paperwork and had it recognized by the state of Colorado as a legal and binding marriage and they have completed the affidavidt but the group is not accepting this as proof of marriage. The information I have on the situation is limited but what I want to know is hether or not the group must recognize common law marriages and afford them the same access to coverage’s such as medical, rx and life insurance as they do others who comply with DOMA. Thanks!

How does the plan document define "spouse"?

[Peter Gulia]

alisonr, it's not clear whether you advise the claimant or the plan's administrator, but either way you might consider giving advice about the plan's claims procedure and the effects of it.

For the claimant, working with the claims procedure might be an opportunity to find out what evidence would satisfy the plan's administrator. Or if the administrator's decision doesn't change, exhausting the plan's claims procedure (including all reviews and appeals) might be a condition that must be met before a court would consider a claim for the benefit.

For the administrator, using the claims procedure might be an opportunity to double-check the soundness of the decision. And if an administrator has a correctly designed claims procedure and has used it properly and fairly, courts usually defer to the administrator's decision.

On the underlying question, what explanation did the decision-maker furnish for why it believes that the evidence the claimant furnished is insufficient to prove the marriage?

[mbozek]

I have a question that I am hoping someone might be able to help. We have a group that is self funded and headquartered out of NJ. The employer wants to know if they have to cover the common law marriage in CO and recognize it as a regular marriage. The employee had a Commitment ceremony that was witnessed by over 30 people and they signed the paperwork and had it recognized by the state of Colorado as a legal and binding marriage and they have completed the affidavidt but the group is not accepting this as proof of marriage. The information I have on the situation is limited but what I want to know is hether or not the group must recognize common law marriages and afford them the same access to coverage’s such as medical, rx and life insurance as they do others who comply with DOMA. Thanks!

CO is one the few states that recgnizes commmon law marriage as a legal marriage under state law. See link to artilce. No formal commitment ceremony is required. The rules are fuzzy and subject to interpretation. Note that CL marriage is subject to DOMA.

http://www.colorado-family-law.com/colorad...aw-marriage.htm

CO Common Law marriage is valid for all purposes including divorce which means that the parties are eligible for benefits of married persons under the employer's plan unless common law marriage is expressly excluded which would make for an interesting question of whether such exclusion is discriminatory under federal law.