Korotynska v. Metropolitan Life Insurance 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 a plaintiff may not seek recovery under § 1132(a)(3) when § 1132(a)(1) provides ade- quate relief
• holding that a breach of fiduciary duty claim brought under Section 502(a)(3) could not lie because plaintiff had an adequate remedy for her denial of benefits claim under Section 502(a)(1)(B)
• holding that a breach of fiduciary duty claim brought under Section 502(a)(3) could not lie because plaintiff had an adequate remedy for her denial of benefits claim under Section 502(a)(1)(B)
• holding that breach of fiduciary duty was denial of benefits claim, in part, because “the only injury of which she complains is the termination of benefits and the resulting financial harm to her”
• holding that breach of fiduciary duty was denial of benefits claim, in part, because “the only injury of which she complains is the termination of benefits and the resulting financial harm to her”
• stating that “the great majority of circuit courts have interpreted Varity to hold that a claimant whose injury creates a cause of action under § 1132(a)(1)(B) may not proceed with a claim under § 1132(a)(3)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).