First Reliance cannot maintain a claim for contribution or indemnification against Armani. In Kim v. Fujikawa, the court concluded that 29 U.S.C. § 1109, as referenced in 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2), “cannot be read as …
It is true that the claims overlap. But where they do, they operate as alternate theories of liability. Pleading multiple causes of action and alternative theories of liability is a standard practice of civil litigation. …
“As an initial matter, the Court notes that this case is somewhat unusual. As stated above, plans often contain reimbursement provisions which expressly entitle them to seek reimbursement from beneficiaries who receive both plan benefits …
The district court used the framework that we established in Williams v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 373 F.3d 1132, 1137-38 (11th Cir. 2004), which provides a six-step process “for use in judicially reviewing virtually all ERISA-plan …
As the Seventh Circuit has recognized, the ERISA claimant whose initial application for benefits has been wrongfully denied is entitled to a different remedy than the claimant whose benefits have been terminated. Hackett v. Xerox …
he complaint, however, clearly states what Anthem is alleged to have done: deny, as a matter of policy and in violation of ERISA, Plaintiff’s request for insurance benefits to cover RFA treatment, on the basis …
The question raised, then, is whether an ERISA plaintiff who has been denied benefits on remand may challenge the denial by filing a timely motion in the same action, or must initiate a new action. …
Based on our review of the record, these conclusions do not reflect a rational connection between the known facts and the decision to deny benefits. . . Unlike the cases the Plan relied upon in …
There is a temptation here to argue that, because all other forms of treatment have not been successful with Mrs. Reimann, it must be “medically necessary” to keep trying even unproven therapies such as a …
That it may be impossible to prove that Mr. Nally was indeed hypoglycemic at the moment of his accident does not mean that LINA’s decision does not survive moderately heightened arbitrary and capricious review. It …