Canal Insurance v. Moore

How courts have described this case

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

• “Assuming a plan does not dictate the form of a valid assignment or bar assignment altogether, a court may draw upon federal common law in assessing whether any purported assignment was effective.”
• anti-assignment clause providing that “[a]ll rights of the member to receive benefits are personal to the member and may not be assigned” rendered purported assignments under plans containing such clause void
• “a provider who asserts a claim as an assignee of a participant or beneficiary to an ERISA plan has standing to sue as long as the litigant has a colorable claim to that status”
• “[a] covered person may assign his or her right to receive plan benefits to a health care provider only with the consent of the benefits administrator, in its sole discretion, except as may be required by applicable law” (the “Consent Clause”)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).