On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Jan 14, 2010 | Case Updates, ERISA, Firm News, Unfair Business Practices/Unfair Competition
In Marin General Hospital v. Modesto & Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2009), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA did not completely preempt state-law causes of actions for breach of contract, negligent...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Jan 14, 2010 | Case Updates, Disability Insurance, Disability Insurance News, Discovery, ERISA, ERISA - Administrative Record, Firm News, Insurance Litigation Blog, News
One of the most interesting questions in ERISA litigation is: What constitutes the administrative record for purposes of determining whether the administrator abused its discretion in making a claim determination? Bartholomew v. Unum Life Ins. Co., 579 F. Supp. 2d...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Jan 14, 2010 | Case Updates, Disability Insurance, Disability Insurance News, ERISA, ERISA - Abuse of Discretion, ERISA - Conflict of Interest, Firm News, Insurance Litigation Blog, News
After the United States Supreme Court decided MetLife Ins. Co. v. Glenn in which the Court held that a reviewing court must consider the conflict of interest arising from the dual role of an insurer acting as a plan administrator and payor of plan benefits as a factor...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Jan 14, 2010 | Case Updates, Disability Insurance, Disability Insurance News, ERISA, ERISA - Abuse of Discretion, ERISA - Conflict of Interest, Firm News, Insurance Litigation Blog, News
The Ninth Circuit recently addressed, for the first time, whether the standard of review analysis for “top hat”ERISA plans is the same as for other ERISA plans. InSznewajs v. U.S. Bancorp Amended and Restated Supplemental Benefits Plan, 572 F.3d 727 (9th Cir. 2009),...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Jan 14, 2010 | Case Updates, Directors & Officers Insurance, Firm News, Insurance Bad Faith, News
The genuine dispute doctrine has received much attention recently by the California courts. Although the doctrine first arose in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, there has not been much recent activity by the Ninth Circuit or the federal district courts located in...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Jan 14, 2010 | Case Updates, Firm News, News, Unfair Business Practices/Unfair Competition
Recently, in Broberg v. The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, 171 Cal. App. 4th 912 (2009), the Court of Appeal held that the “delayed discovery” rule, which applies to delay accrual of the statute of limitations for fraud causes of action until such time as...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Jan 14, 2010 | Case Updates, Disability Insurance, Disability Insurance News, Firm News, Health/Medical Insurance, Insurance Bad Faith, Insurance Litigation Blog, News, Punitive Damages
Bosetti v. The United States Life Ins. Co., 175 Cal. App. 4th 1208 (2009) is an important California Court of Appeal decision that addressed whether a two-year benefits limitation on disabilities due to “mental, nervous or emotional disorder[s]” could serve to limit...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Jan 14, 2010 | Case Updates, Firm News, News, Unfair Business Practices/Unfair Competition
In a pair of cases, the California Supreme Court restricted the use of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. One case affirmed what many expected, that Proposition 64, a 2004 voter initiative, requires plaintiffs to follow strict...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Jan 14, 2010 | Case Updates, Firm News, Health/Medical Insurance, News, Regulations, Rescission
California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner unveiled his proposed regulations to, according to an LA Times article dated June 3, 2009, “combat the health insurance industry practice of dropping members with costly illnesses.” According to the article, Poizner’s...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Jan 14, 2010 | Case Updates, Firm News, News, Securities/FINRA
Several insurers who act as broker-dealers in connection with the sale of “securities” find themselves litigating in Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) (formerly NASD) arbitrations when disputes arise. Sometimes, they prefer not to litigate in a FINRA...
