By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//April 13, 2011//
By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//April 13, 2011//
ERISA
Attorney fees
Where an insured obtains some success in suing an ERISA plan for denial of benefits, but may not ultimately prevail, the district court’s award of attorney fees is vacated pending reconsideration on remand.
“We would be hesitant to conclude that the Defendants’ position, though unsuccessful in significant part, was so indefensible as to warrant an award of attorney’s fees to Huss. See Harris Trust and Sav. Bank v. Provident Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 57 F.3d 608, 617 (7th Cir. 1995). Nevertheless, we need not and do not decide whether the district court abused its discretion in finding the Defendants’ litigation position not substantially justified. As we stated above, Huss has achieved some success on the merits of her case and may therefore be entitled to some portion of her attorney’s fees request. The Supreme Court has held that ‘where the plaintiff achieved only limited success, the district court should award only that amount of fees that is reasonable in relation to the results obtained.’ Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 440 (1983).”
“Given that we have significantly altered the outcome of the litigation below, and that the district court is in the best position to determine any attorney’s fee award, we choose to vacate the attorney’s fees and expenses award. We remand the issue to the district court for reconsideration in light of Hardt, Huss’s degree of success on the merits, and our discussion and holdings in this case.”
Affirmed in part, and Reversed in part.
10-1061 & 10-2749 Huss v. IBM Medical & Dental Plan
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Zagel, J., Kanne, J.