Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Francisco L. Borges, Treasurer of the State of Connecticut, and State of Connecticut

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that Connecticut’s escheat law does not directly implicate ERISA plans or benefits, but focuses on abandoned or lost property generally and is not preempted by ERISA
• explaining that laws of general application, which are “often traditional exercises of state power or regulatory authority,” are not preempted if their effect upon ERISA plans is incidental
• holding that ERISA does not preempt Connecticut's escheat law.
• noting that state laws that have not been preempted are “laws of general application—often traditional exercises of state power or regulatory authority—whose effect on ERISA plans is incidental”
• discounting Fund's complaint that it would need to make administrative and accounting adjustments in order to comply with state escheat law because the impact was not substantial enough
• discounting Fund’s complaint that it would need to make administrative and accounting adjustments in order to comply with state escheat law because the impact was not substantial enough

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).