Marianne Locher v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, Katten Muchin & Zavis

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 conflicted administrator does not per se constitute good cause” and clarifying that DeFelice based its “holding not only on a demonstrated conflict of interest, but also upon the procedural problems with the plan administrator’s appeals process”
• noting that failure to seek or confer a benefit on all participants and beneficiaries or to resolve a significant legal question regarding ERISA does not preclude an award of attorneys’ fees
• finding good cause where a conflicted administrator did not have written procedures for claims review
• affirming district court’s decision to hold three-day bench trial in ERISA case where six witnesses testified, including several of plaintiff’s physicians
• affirming an award of benefits through the date of judgment where the insurance policy placed the burden of requesting evidence of continued disability on the insurer and the insurer had not made any such request
• “ ‘ERISA’s attorney’s fee provisions must be liberally construed to protect the statutory purpose of vindicating retirement rights”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).