James B. Ross v. Rail Car America Group Disability Income Plan the Canada Life Assurance Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that although a party “admits that it had control over claims under the policy ... assuming that function did not transform it into the Plan Administrator” under Section 1024(b)
• rejecting a “de facto [p]lan [a]dministrator” argument, which “cannot stand in the face of the uncontroverted facts, ERISA, and settled case law”
• rejecting a “de facto [p]lan -14- [a]dministrator” argument, which “cannot stand in the face of the uncontroverted facts, ERISA, and settled case law”
• affirming the district court’s dismissal of a § 1132(c) claim against the claims administrator because § 1132(c) only provides a cause of action against plan administrators

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).