Search the News Archive

Text of Federal District Court Opinion: LTD Plan Did Not Need to Be Fully Executed to Confer Discretion (PDF)

"Magistrate Judge Corker found that the arbitrary and capricious standard of review should apply because the submitted plan gave the requisite discretionary authority to Defendant to determine benefit eligibility and because Reliance Standard, not another entity, made the final eligibility determination.... The magistrate judge correctly found that merely because the policy produced does not have one party's signature does not nullify the policy.... To find that the submitted plan is not in fact the plan that governs Plaintiff's claim would require the court ... to 'speculate that the 'actual' plan is lost.' The Court will not so speculate given the record before it." [Justice v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., No. 2:15-cv-00134 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 24, 2016)]

Text of Federal District Court Opinion Awarding Statutory Penalties for Failure to Furnish Plan Document for Life Insurance Plan Even Though Terms Were Identical to SPD (PDF)

"Defendant Board of Trustees argues that its failure to provide Plaintiff with the Plan Document is excused because the Plan Document contains no terms that specifically address the life insurance benefit, and because there are no conflicting terms between the SPD and the Plan Document regarding same.... [T]he terms of the SPD specifically state that in the event of any inconsistency between the SPD and the Plan Document, the Plan Document will control. Ergo, armed only with access to the SPD and not the Plan Document, Plaintiff could not have known the unequivocal terms of the life insurance policy because she did not have the opportunity to discover any inconsistencies, or lack thereof, between the SPD and the Plan Document.... Defendant Board of Trustees will be assessed a penalty of $61,380.00 for its failure to furnish a copy of the Plan Document ... in addition to the $12,760.00 for Defendant Board of Trustees' failure to provide a copy of the Policy." [Harris-Frye v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., No. 1:14-cv-72 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 21, 2015)]