ERISA – Standard of Review

Listen to this article

Civil

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Officials: BAUER, KANNE, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

ERISA – Standard of Review

No.14-1984 Mary C. Fontaine v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

Illinois insurance regulation prohibiting discretionary clauses not preempted by ERISA.

“MetLife’s final argument is that § 2001.3 does not prohibit all discretionary clauses but only clauses reserving discretion “to interpret the terms of the contract, or to provide standards of interpretation or review that are inconsistent with the laws of this State.” MetLife claims that clauses reserving discretion to make benefit determinations are unaffected by § 2001.3. In Firestone, the Supreme Court rejected this artificial dichotomy between “benefit determinations” and “contract interpretation,” pointing out that “the validity of a claim to benefits under an ERISA plan is likely to turn on the interpretation of terms in the plan at issue.” 489 U.S. at 115. MetLife does not grapple with this point, much less argue that this is an exceptional case where its benefit determination did not “turn on the interpretation of terms in the plan at issue.” Id”

Affirmed

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.