Ball v. Brown-Ross Shoe Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the overpayments were specific funds and that the basis for the claim wás equitable
• holding that plan language stating that “[w]hen an overpayment has been made by CIGNA, CIGNA will have the right at any time to . . . recover that overpayment from the person to whom or on whose behalf it was made,” (italics omitted) created an equitable lien by agreement
• finding injury-in-fact to Cigna based on expenditures of its “time and resources” in investigating defendant’s billing practices
• “Moreover, . . . Cigna has expended its own time and resources in investigating the surgical centers' billing practices through post-procedure patient surveys and patient interviews, and by corresponding with the surgical centers regarding their billing practices.”
• insurance company’s plans allowed it to interpret and authorize payment of claims and administration of benefits, which were sufficient at the pleading stage for it to have standing to bring suit under ERISA (citing Gerosa v. Savasta & Co., 329 F.3d 317, 320 (2d Cir. 2003))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).