Demetrius Elliot v. State of Florida

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that benefits did not vest where the SPD provided for “lifetime” benefits but also included a reservation of rights clause
• holding that no right can exist under an ERISA plan unless it is set forth in a writing
• holding that the plaintiffs’ claims lacked commonality because the statements at issue varied, in part, “based on the person making the representation”
• holding that principles of estoppel are inapplicable where the terms of an ERISA plan are not ambiguous
• holding that typicality is not established where resolution of a named plaintiff’s claim would not “necessarily have proved anybody else’s claim”
• recognizing that statements that vary “based on the person making the representation” defeat commonality

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).