Ross Glenn Moorman, Jr. v. UnumProvident

How courts have described this case

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

• reviewing for abuse of discretion, as part of an interlocutory appeal, the denial of a discovery order
• finding endorsement where the employer decided on at least one of the eligibility terms and identified the plan in its employee handbook as part of the company's employee benefits
• employer established a fund to pay benefits by selecting a sole long-term benefits plan and limiting eligibility to certain employees
• “safe harbor analysis is usually conducted before considering whether the plan is governed by ERISA using the more factor- intensive analysis under 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1)”
• where employer did not actually pay benefits, its direct involvement in the payment process (i.e., maintaining a supply of claim forms and facilitating the payment of benefits) satisfied the fourth Butero factor
• ERISA governs employee welfare benefit plan, which is “ ‘any plan, fund, or program ... established or maintained by an employer’ to provide benefits through an insurance policy” (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).