Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Massachusetts

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 state law mandating mental health benefits was not within ERISA’s pre-emptive reach
• holding that a state law mandating mental health benefits was not within ERISA's pre-emptive reach
• holding that a statute requiring insurers to provide mental-health benefits does effect a spreading of risk among policyholders
• concluding that statute which mandates inclusion of certain policy provisions is integral to the insurer-insured relationship
• holding that a statute requiring certain insurers to provide mental-health benefits affects a spreading of the risk
• holding that mandated benefits laws regulate an integral part of the policy relationship “by limiting the type of insurance that an insurer may sell to the policyholder”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).