Kellogg v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the plain meaning of the policy at issue was supported by the employer’s own interpretation of the coverage in the Summary Plan Description
• acknowledging that the 2002 ERISA regulations may have called into question the substantial compliance rule but declining to decide the issue
• discussing, among other cases, National Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Franklin, 506 S.W.2d 765 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1974, writ ref’d n.r.e.)
• entertaining the idea that the 2002 ERISA regulations “called into question the continuing validity of the substantial compliance rule”
• applying de novo review when a claim administrator fails to issue any decision during the applicable appeal period
• discussing appropriate cause standard in ERISA plan context and noting the First Circuit's rejection of a complicated proximate cause analysis in favor of \viewing the policy as an ordinary policyholder would\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).