There were many long decisions issued this week and quite a few are only marginally interesting. But, dear ERISA Watchers, we read and summarize them so you don’t have to.

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

Attorneys’ Fees

Eighth Circuit

Yates v. Symetra Life Ins. Co., No. 4:19-CV-154-RLW, 2022 WL 1618787 (E.D. Mo. May 23, 2022) (Judge Ronnie L. White). On January 3rd of this year, the court granted plaintiff Terri Yates’s motion to alter judgment, reversed its earlier opinion that she had failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and awarded her accidental death benefits concluding that her husband’s death from a heroin overdose was an unforeseen outcome his heroin use and not an intentional self-inflicted injury.

Continue Reading Your ERISA Watch – Week of June 1, 2022

Woolsey v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., No. 20-16885, __ Fed. Appx. __, 2022 WL 1598964 (9th Cir. May 20, 2022) (Before Circuit Judges Hawkins, Paez, and Watford).

In 2010, in Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., the Supreme Court ruled that ERISA claimants need not be “prevailing parties” in order to be eligible for an award of attorney’s fees. Instead, they only need to obtain “some success on the merits.” What does that mean? The Court explained that a claimant must achieve more than “trivial success” or a “purely procedural victory,” and that a trial court should not conduct a “lengthy inquiry into the question whether a particular party’s success was ‘substantial’ or occurred on a ‘central issue.’”

As you might imagine, this answer only raised more questions. The lower courts have been wrestling with the issue of how much success is “some success on the merits” ever since Hardt. One recurring scenario is when a trial court finds that the claims process was somehow defective and remands the case back to the claim administrator for further action. Is that sufficient “success on the merits” to qualify the claimant for a fee award? Continue Reading Kantor & Kantor Convinces Ninth Circuit That Remand Order Made Claimant Eligible for Attorney’s Fees

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