Jones v. Reliastar 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 under the circumstances “discovery [was] unnecessary to establish the existence of a conflict”
• affirming denial of motion for discovery to explore conflict of interest because discovery was unnecessary to establish the existence of a conflict
• affirming the district court’s denial of leave to conduct discovery because the “administrative record is sufficient to permit a fair evaluation” of the administrator’s decision and the plaintiff offered no convincing reason why the record should be expanded
• “In ERISA cases, the general rule is that review is limited to evidence that was before the administrator.” (citing LaSalle v. Mercantile Bancorporation, Inc. Long Term Disability Plan, 498 F.3d 805, 811 (8th Cir. 2007))
• where plaintiff “emphasize[d] 32 that discovery should be allowed to explore [the defendant’s] conflict of interest, but [the defendant] concede[d] that it was both insurer and administrator of the plan, . . . discovery is unnecessary to establish the existence of a conflict”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).