Featured Jobs
Retirement, LLC
|
United 401(k) Plans, Inc.
|
Carpenter Morse Group
|
Nicholas Pension Consultants
|
Benefit Associates, Inc.
|
Compass Retirement Consulting Group, Inc.
|
DPS Retirement Plan Consultant EPIC Retirement Plan Services
|
Defined Benefit Calculation Specialist/Actuary The Angell Pension Group, Inc.
|
Bates & Company
|
Retirement Plan Legal Specialist Pentegra
|
Trucker Huss, A Professional Corporation
|
Nova 401(k) Associates
|
Central Pension Fund of the IUOE
|
Prime Pensions, Inc.
|
Retirement Plan Relationship Manager ERISA Services, Inc.
|
Central Pension Fund of the IUOE
|
Free Newsletters
“BenefitsLink continues to be the most valuable resource we have at the firm.”
-- An attorney subscriber
 |    |
<< Previous news item | Next news item >>
| What a Difference Discretion Makes Kantor & Kantor  Aug. 19, 2021 "The appellate court explained that the California statute could be read to apply if a policy covered even one California resident, even if the claimant was not a California resident himself. However, the Court concluded that such an interpretation would violate the Commerce Clause and thus be unconstitutional. [That] interpretation would also be a logistical nightmare since the standard of review in any one case would depend on the residence of all the other plan participants.' [Mayer v. Ringler Assocs. Inc., No. 20-1281 (2d Cir. Aug. 12, 2021)] |
| Please click here to report this link if it is broken (for example, if you see a "404 File Not Found" error message after you click on the link above). |
| An important word about authorship: BenefitsLink® is providing a hypertext link to the item shown above, but is not the author of the item (unless otherwise specified). |
