Carden v. Aetna Life Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that insurer’s decision to offset plaintiff’s settlement from asbestosis against his LTD benefits for vertigo was reasonable because the conditions were comorbid and both contributed to his disability
• recognizing that, under Glenn, “a conflict of interest becomes just one of the ‘several different, often case-specific, factors’ to be weighed together in determining whether the administrator abused its discretion” (quoting Glenn, 128 S. Ct. at 2351
• explaining that the “application of [the contra proferentem] rule to curb discretion given an administrator by a plan” is “now foreclose[d]”
• indicating that the Supreme Court’s decision in Glenn forecloses the “application of that rule to curb the discretion given an administrator by a plan”
• affirming district court order upholding plan administrator’s offset of workers compensation benefits
• “When a plan administrator employs interpretative discretion to construe an ambiguous provision in favor of its financial interest, that fact may be considered as a factor weighing against the reasonableness of the decision.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).