No case of the week this week, but keep reading to stay abreast of the latest ERISA developments.

Below is a summary of this past week’s notable ERISA decisions by subject matter and jurisdiction.

Attorneys’ Fees

Third Circuit

Kairys v. S. Pines Trucking, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-1031-NR, 2022 WL 1457786 (W.D. Pa. May 9, 2022) (Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan). Having succeeded on the merits with his statutory wage and ERISA claims, plaintiff Thomas Kairys moved for attorneys’ fees and costs. Defendant Southern Pines Trucking agreed that an award of fees and costs was appropriate but objected to the amount of both the attorneys’ fees and the costs requested, arguing they were excessive. Although the hourly rates were not specified in the decision, the court found “the rates Mr. Kairys’ counsel charged are well-supported and reflective of the market rate.” Accordingly, the court overruled defendant’s request to reduce the hourly rates. The court also articulated that the billing entries were appropriately detailed. Continue Reading Your ERISA Watch – Week of May 18, 2022

Your ERISA Watch – Eighth Circuit Rules That Reliance Standard’s “Haphazard System of Ships Passing in the Night” Led to a Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Skelton v. Radisson Hotel Bloomington, No. 21-2641, __ F.4th __, 2022 WL 1434778 (8th Cir. May 6, 2022) (Before Circuit Judges Gruender, Benton, and Erickson).

ERISA-governed life insurance benefit plans are typically administered jointly by the employer and an insurance company. The exact duties of each party vary from plan to plan, but often the division of responsibility is confusing. It is common for one party to be uncertain as to what the other is supposed to be doing, and frequently neither party possesses full information as to which employees have signed up for what, and whether those employees have met all the requirements for eligibility or enrollment. Continue Reading Eighth Circuit Rules That Reliance Standard’s “Haphazard System of Ships Passing in the Night” Led to a Breach of Fiduciary Duty

On this month’s episode our host Elizabeth Hopkins interviews Ed, a father whose daughter struggled with an eating disorder when she was a teenager over a decade ago. The family had to take out a second mortgage on their home in order to pay for life-saving treatment at a residential facility after their healthcare plan insurer refused to pay and they could obtain no help from the state agency tasked with regulating health insurance.

A lot has changed since that time.  But more remains to be done because every day insurance companies still refuse to pay for residential treatment prescribed by doctors for patients suffering from eating disorders and other mental illnesses and these patients are either unable to obtain the treatment they need to recover or their families are forced to go into debt to pay what should be covered by their insurance.