Loren v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that participants’ allegations that they incurred “greater costs than they would otherwise have incurred if BCB SM had not violated its fiduciary duties” was neither concrete nor particularized injury in fact
• concluding that plaintiffs have Article III standing to sue under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)
• noting that there is “no ... tradition of unharmed ERISA beneficiaries bringing suit on behalf of their plans”
• stating that standing “goes to . . . subject matter jurisdiction” and can therefore “be raised sua sponte”
• determining that separate administration did not create a genuine issue of material fact
• noting that plaintiffs’ claimed injury of “greater costs than they would have incurred” if there had been no ERISA violation “assumes that [employers] would pass on any increase in reimbursements or administrative fees”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).