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

    • £0.49
    • £0.49

Publisher Description

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
Professional & Technical
RELEASED
2010
8 September
LANGUAGE
EN
English
LENGTH
27
Pages
PUBLISHER
LawApp Publishers
SIZE
84.2
KB

More Books by Arizona Supreme Court

State Board of Dispensing Opticians v. Schwab State Board of Dispensing Opticians v. Schwab
1963
Maxwell V. Fidelity Financial Services Inc. Maxwell V. Fidelity Financial Services Inc.
1995
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