Daily Case Update Archive

As a service to our members, we monitor opinions issued from the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio State First District Court of Appeals, and the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. You can read the latest summaries or archived summaries from 2005 , 2006 , 2007 , 2008 , 2009 , 2010.

If you would like to receive a daily e-mail with same-day case updates, please join our Subscribers-Only discussion list. Not a subscriber? Join today!

January 11th, 2007

Ohio Supreme Court | Ohio First District | U.S. 6th Circuit - Ohio | U.S. 6th Circuit - Other States

TOPICS:
- ERISA

Ohio Supreme Court: No Opinions.
First District Court of Appeals: [Search Other Ohio Districts]; No Opinions.
U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Ohio Cases: No Opinions.
U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Other States Cases: Elliott v. Metro Life Ins Co (Jan. 11, 2007) (Appeal from E.D. Ky.)
- http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0013p-06.pdf
- This case presents the questions of whether an ERISA plan's determination to deny benefits was arbitrary and capricious and, if it was, what remedy this court should order. Patricia Elliott submitted a claim for long-term disability benefits to the administrator of her employer's employee benefit plan, Metropolitan Life ("MetLife"). MetLife denied Elliott's claim. Thereafter, Elliott brought this ERISA action, based on the administrative record, against MetLife for wrongful denial of benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). MetLife moved for judgment affirming its decision to deny benefits and Elliott moved for reversal. Holding that MetLife's determination to deny benefits was not "arbitrary and capricious," the district court granted MetLife's motion and denied Elliott's motion. Elliott appealed to this court. Because we conclude that MetLife's decision was arbitrary and capricious, we vacate the judgment of the district court. The record does not support the conclusion that MetLife's denial of Elliott's claim was the result of a deliberative, principled reasoning process. We cannot say, however, that Elliott is clearly entitled to long-term disability benefits. Consequently, we remand to the district court with instructions to remand to MetLife for a full and fair review consistent with this opinion.

Law Blog

Daily Case Updates