Michigan Court Does Not Enforce State Ban on Discretionary Clauses in Long Term Disability Plans Where the Policy Was Issued in Another State


 Employees in Chicago, and all over Illinois, are starting to become more aware of a state law ban on discretionary clauses in various insurance policies that fund their employee benefit plans, such as long-term disability, health insurance, and life and accidental death insurance. In 2005, the Illinois Department of Insurance enacted 50 Ill. Adm. Code § 2001.3, which bans insurers offering or issuing long term disability, health, or life or accidental death insurance policies in Illinois from having a discretionary clause in any "policy, contract, certificate, endorsement, rider application or agreement". However, this regulation only applies to insurance policies issued or offered in Illinois. If you work in Illinois, how do you know then whether you have protection from this ban on discretionary clauses?

The answer is not as simple as one might expect. Where an insurance policy is issued or offered can be a tricky question to answer. It may involve looking at the face of the policy, and where the policy said it was executed. Where is the employer's headquarters? Recently in a case in Michigan, the employee (or plan participant) argued that the Michigan ban on discretionary clauses should apply because the insurance policy benefited Michigan employees. See Foorman v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, No. 12-927 (W.D. Mich. May 3, 2013). https://askcompetentlawyer.com/ The court rejected this argument because the employer, Comcast, was headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Also, the insurance policy expressly stated it was issued in Pennsylvania, and governed by that state's laws. Pennsylvania has no similar ban on discretionary clauses.

On the other hand, a Chicago court has reached a slightly different conclusion in Curtis v. Hartford Life & Accident. Insurance. Co., No. 11 C 2448 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 18, 2012). There, Children's Memorial Hospital, based in Illinois, subscribed to a trust based in Delaware, that pooled employers to buy an insurance policy issued in Delaware, which has no ban on discretionary clauses. However, Children's Memorial paid the premiums to Hartford, and Hartford was not obligated to accept any employer subscribed to the trust. The Chicago court held that to not apply the ban on discretionary clauses in these circumstances would promote "form over substance."

If you have a claim for long term disability, health, or life insurance benefits, call an experienced ERISA attorney who knows how to determine whether your benefit plan will include an enforceable discretionary clause.

Комментарии

Отправить комментарий

Популярные сообщения из этого блога

Why Your Executive Employment Agreement May Reference Dodd-Frank Clawback Policy

Изображение
 Executives in Chicago may be puzzled to begin seeing vague references to new compensation clawback policies in their executive employment agreements. Section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act requires, as a condition of the employer's securities being listed on a national securities exchange or association (such as NYSE, NASDAQ, etc.), if the employer must restate any financial statements because of "material noncompliance" with the securities laws, then the issuer will recoup from any current or former executive officer during the 3 years preceding the date the employer had to restate those financial statements all amounts paid in incentive based compensation that exceeds what would have been paid under the restated financials. Executive Compensation lawyers who advise employers mostly agree the executive employment agreements need to mention the clawback policy. However, the employers' lawyers advise to avoid being specific about the terms of the clawba
Далее...

Don't Forget to Update Your Beneficiary Designations on Employer Sponsored Retirement or Life Insurance Plans

Изображение
  Executives and employees participating in employee benefit plans in Chicago received a reminder this week about why it is important to keep track of your benefit plans' beneficiary designations, and update those designations when appropriate. Many people may think they can enter into binding agreements with others, such as family members or former spouses, about entitlement to or waiver of benefits under an employee benefit plan, like a pension or life insurance. Lawyer office in Ohio . However, if the plan is one covered by ERISA, those agreements, even if part of an agreed court order, will have no bearing on what the benefit plan administrator does with any proceeds if inconsistent with the beneficiary designation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reiterated this point in Jackman Financial Corp. v. Humana Insurance Co., No. 10-2112, Slip Op. (7th Cir. May 31, 2011). In that case, Mr. Torrence was a participant in a group term life insurance policy of
Далее...

Courts Still at Odds over What Language Grants Discretion to an ERISA Plan Administrator

Изображение
  Employees in Chicago that are participants in any employee benefit plans should pay attention to the growing divide among Courts of Appeals over whether "satisfactory to us" is language in a plan sufficient to vest the plan administrator with discretion to interpret plan terms and make benefit determinations. When the administrator has such discretion, a court reviewing the administrator's decision will do so under an abuse of discretion standard--whether the decision was reasonable, not whether it was right. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit joined the ranks of courts in holding such language requiring a participant to provide proof of a loss "satisfactory to us" does not confer discretion on the administrator of the plan. Viera v. Life Insurance Company of North America, No. 10-22810, Slip Op. at 19 (3d Cir. June 10, 2011). Lawyer office in Ohio . The Third Circuit joined the ranks of the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits in holding
Далее...