subscribe: Posts | Comments

High Court Decides ERISA Case

0 comments

In a widely watched employee benefits case, the Supreme Court has made a significant ruling about an employee benefits plan covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).  The Court said that, under the circumstances of this case, a conflict of interest existed when the administrator of the plan evaluates the validity of benefit claims and also pays for them.

In Metropolitan Life v. Glenn, an employee initially received disability benefits.  Later, the benefits were terminated.  The plan administrtor, MetLife, was also the insurer that paid claims under the benefits plan.  Wait a minute, said the employee whose benefits were terminated.  You can’t let the company who pays the benefits also adminster the plan and decide whether benefits are paid without violating ERISA.

In a somewhat fractured opinion, the Court didn’t say that a company could never be both the administrator that decided whether benefits were paid and the insurer that paid the benefits.  In this case, said the Court, the conflict was too significant for MetLife to have both roles. 

Leave a Reply