Wojcik v. Aetna Life Insurance & Annuity 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 U-4’s clause requiring compliance with future amendments would have no meaning if “relevant conduct” meant U-4 signing
• holding that since employee filed his claim after effective date of the amendments, employee could be subjected to arbitration
• directing arbitration of state fraud and contract claims because \Wojcik filed his claim after the effective date of the [new NASD rule]\
• requiring plaintiff to allege unlawful insurance practices and not merely wrongful employment conduct 15 directed toward plaintiff
• exception not applicable where claims arise from wrongful conduct directed at employee, not insurance aspect of employer’s business

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).