Join The Conversation
Don Levit
11/17/2008 01:47 PM
Brian:
Thanks so much for posting this article.
John Langbein has been very helpful to me each time I have contacted him.
While he is acknowledged in many court cases as an ERISA expert, I have found him to be very willing to engage me in various questions and comments, and to want to continue learning from a position of humility and wonder.
I found these excerpts to be very compelling: "Because the normal private trust is essentially a gift, trust law exhibits great deference to the wishes of the transferor. In ERISA, by contrast, Congress imposed trust law concepts for regulatory purposes, to restrict rather than to promote the autonomy of the employer over its employee benefit plans. This fundamental difference of purpose should lead the Court to restrict the power of an ERISA plan sponsor to alter the standard of judicial review."
"Under ERISA's duty of loyalty, the decisionmaker must interpret and apply terms solely in the interest of participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries. Judge Posner is therefore confusing a contract counterparty who is allowed to act selfishly, with an ERISA fiduciary, who is forbidden to."
By allowing those with final authority over benefit claims to use the arbitrary and capricious standard, it seems to me that the courts have watered down the duties of a fiduciary. How would they be defined then, according to ERISA: a pseudo-fiduciary?
It seems to me that the settlor duties have been mixed in with those of a fiduciary. If the welfare plan becomes too costly, the employer can always amend the plan, or even terminate it. It seems like the courts are too sensitive to employers even establishing welfare plans, without this pseudo-fiduciary title.
Don Levit
Brian S. King
11/17/2008 01:47 PM
I'm with you brother!
Post A Comment
Articles
- Posted on 05/17/2011 CIGNA v. Amara
- Posted on 03/29/2011 Bloomberg Markets' article on ERISA
- Posted on 12/24/2010 James F. v. CIGNA Behavioral Health Inc.
News
- Posted on 07/11/2019 Timothy D. v. Aetna Health and Life Ins. Co.
- Posted on 06/24/2019 Family says insurance fails to pay for mental health coverage despite medical necessity
- Posted on 04/24/2006 Eliminating Discretionary Clauses in Insurance Policies