Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Group Insurance Plan Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Group Insurance Plan

Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Group Insurance Plan

619 F.3D 1151, 49 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS CAS. 2345, 77 FED.R.SERV.3D 590, 2010.C10.0001047

    • 0,99 €
    • 0,99 €

Beschreibung des Verlags

Plaintiff-Appellant Aileen Murphy was a participant in the Deloitte & Touche Group Insurance Plan ("the Plan"), an insurance plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife") both insured and administered the Plan; thus, it operated under an inherent dual role conflict of interest, see Weber v. GE Group Life Assurance Co., 541 F.3d 1002, 1011 (10th Cir. 2008). While a participant in the Plan, Ms. Murphy filed a claim for long-term disability benefits, which MetLife ultimately denied.

GENRE
Gewerbe und Technik
ERSCHIENEN
2010
8. September
SPRACHE
EN
Englisch
UMFANG
27
Seiten
VERLAG
LawApp Publishers
GRÖSSE
84,2
 kB

Mehr Bücher von Arizona Supreme Court

Swanson v. Image Bank Swanson v. Image Bank
2003
Allstate Insurance Co. v. O''toole Allstate Insurance Co. v. O''toole
1995
Aesthetic Property Maintenance Inc. v. Capital Indemnity Corp. Aesthetic Property Maintenance Inc. v. Capital Indemnity Corp.
1995
Sohl v. Winkler Sohl v. Winkler
1994
Matter of Evans Matter of Evans
1995
Wagenseller V. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital Wagenseller V. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital
1985