28 Cited authorities

  1. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn

    554 U.S. 105 (2008)   Cited 2,791 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an ERISA conflict emerges where the same administrator “both funds the plan and evaluates the claims,” because “every dollar provided in benefits is a dollar spent by ... the [administrator]; and every dollar saved ... is a dollar in [the administrator's] pocket”
  2. Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila

    542 U.S. 200 (2004)   Cited 2,220 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the goal of ERISA is to create a uniform regulatory regime over employee benefit plans, and that ERISA preempts any state law cause of action that duplicates, supplements, or supplants the remedies available under ERISA
  3. Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co.

    560 U.S. 242 (2010)   Cited 985 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party need not "prevail[]" to obtain a fee award under § 1132(g); instead, a court has discretion to grant such an award as long as the party "has achieved some degree of success on the merits"
  4. Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.

    571 U.S. 99 (2013)   Cited 293 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a participant in an employee benefit plan covered by ERISA may agree by contract to a particular limitations period, even one that starts to run before the cause of action accrues, as long as the period is reasonable and distinguishing Occidental based on the evidence in Occidental that there were obstacles to bringing a timely claim within the limitations period
  5. U.S. Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen

    569 U.S. 88 (2013)   Cited 252 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding equitable principles cannot override clear plan terms
  6. Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran

    536 U.S. 355 (2002)   Cited 304 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that savings clause allowed Illinois to enforce law requiring independent medical review of certain denials of medical benefits
  7. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    98 N.Y.2d 208 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 337 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that indemnity should be allocated pro rata
  8. Vandenberg v. Superior Court

    21 Cal.4th 815 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 340 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is "incorrect" to "distinguish contract from tort liability for purposes of the CGL insurance coverage phrase `legally obligated to pay as damages'"
  9. American States Ins. Co. v. Koloms

    177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997)   Cited 266 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that pollution exclusion clause did not extend beyond the traditional environmental arena
  10. Stonewall Ins. Co. v. Asbestos Claims Mgmt

    73 F.3d 1178 (2d Cir. 1995)   Cited 192 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that New York law did not bar coverage of damages even though the insured knew, before the inception date of its policies, "that its products risked asbestosis and cancer diseases and had received a large number of claims"
  11. Section 500.23 - Amicus curiae relief

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.23   Cited 3 times

    Any non-party other than the Attorney General seeking to file an amicus brief on an appeal, certified question or motion for leave to appeal must obtain permission by motion. Potentialamici seeking information are encouraged to contact the clerk's office by telephone during business hours. Information on the calendar status of appeals and certified questions, court session dates and appropriate return dates for amicus motions also is available on the court's website. Any nonparty other than the Attorney