Spillane v. AXA FINANCIAL, INC.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding sufficient as evidence of contribution that the employer and employees shared the premium payments and the policies were issued with a volume discount, and that the plaintiff had not submitted contrary documentation
• “the requirement of a class of beneficiaries can be met even if only a single employee is covered”
• the plaintiff paid annual premiums after resigning, but the employer nevertheless had maintained or established the plan

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).