Weber v. GE Group Life Assurance Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court must “decrease the level of deference given in proportion to the seriousness of the conflict,” and stating that “[t]his approach mirrors the Glenn Court’s method of accounting for the conflict-of-interest factor”
• stating that we lack jurisdiction to enlarge the rights of the appellee absent a cross-appeal
• observing that in the ERISA context, the Court treats the terms ‘arbitrary and capricious’ and ‘abuse of discretion’ as interchangeable
• concluding prejudgment interest is available under section 29 U.S.C. § 1132 as “appropriate equitable relief”
• requiring courts to assess, inter alia, whether: (1) “the decision was the result of a reasoned and principled process;” and (2) “is consistent with any prior interpretations by the plan administrator”
• distinguishing cases, including Elsey, in which “the employee was not considered ‘actively at work’” because “the employee never returned to work at all after the pertinent coverage’s effective date”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).