Ackerman v. Fortis Benefits Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that it was not necessary for participant to expressly amend complaint to state claim for benefits under ERISA, where insurer, which argued claim was completely preempted, was fully aware of participant’s claim for benefits under ERISA
• holding that for claims that are completely preempted, dismissal is improper and leave to amend the complaint is unnecessary because “as demonstrated by its complete preemption argument, [the defendant] is fully aware of the ERISA claim set forth by [the plaintiff]”
• noting that a breach of contract claim was completely preempted by ERISA and therefore was to be treated as stating a claim under ERISA
• stating that “the concept of traditional preemption and that of complete preemption are unique, distinct, and mutually exclusive; as to a single claim, they are incompatible and cannot coexist.”
• finding important to the endorsement analysis that the employer’s name was identified in the plan name
• “[Amendment] is not an absolute requirement. Indeed, the Court has at other times simply recognized the existence of the ERISA claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).