Supreme Court Decision in Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co., et al., in Alignment with DRI Amicus Brief
|Targeted News Service|
In a decision today, the
This case revolved around the extent to which the terms of an ERISA-covered plan can establish the date on which the statute of limitations to file a claim for benefits complaint in federal court will begin to run.
Five months later Mrs. Heimeshoff retained counsel and advised of her intent to appeal the denial decision made by the plan. Through counsel, Mrs. Heimeshoff sought and received plan-related documents, which included the plan's contractual three-year limitations period and established that such period began to run from the date proof of loss was due. After the conclusion of her informal appeal, Mrs. Heimeshoff's claim was again denied on
Mrs. Heimeshoff's suit challenging the denial of benefits was not filed until
In her appeal to the
In its amicus brief on the merits, DRI supported the
"The Court agreed that powerful and compelling reasons support the conclusion that courts should uphold express plan language that provides a reasonable period for claimants to challenge adverse decisions," said
For the full text of the amicus brief, click here.
|Copyright:||(c) 2013 Targeted News Service|