Barry v. Brandywine at Seaside Pointe

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a state anti-subrogation statute “directly controls the terms of insurance contracts by invalidating any subrogation provisions that they contain”
• holding that state regulation of self-insured ERISA plans preempted while insured plans subject to indirect regulation because underlying insurance contracts regulable
• holding that self-funded ERISA plans “are exempt from state regulation insofar as that regulation ‘relate[s] to’ the plans”
• holding that, for ERISA qualified plans, ERISA preempted application of the anti-subrogation provision of the MVFRL
• holding that self-funded employee benefit plans governed by ERISA are not subject to direct state regulation
• holding that state laws may not abridge an employer’s right to enforce an ERISA-governed plan’s subrogation provision

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).