Mead v. Arthur Andersen, LLP

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that plaintiffs claim for breach of fiduciary duty merely duplicated her “ordinary” denial of benefits claim
• “[I]t is inappropriate to include a § 502(a)(3) claim which, as here, merely duplicates the § 502(a)(1) claim.”
• “[I]t is ‘appropriate’ to allow plaintiffs to include a § -502(a)(3) claim which may provide distinct relief from a § 502(a)(1) claim; it is inappropriate to include a § 502(a)(3) claim which, as here, merely duplicates the § 502(a)(1) claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).