Cases

501 F.3d 1153 (2007) Shirley A. GRAHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Nos. 06-5054, 06-5142. United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. August 24, 2007. *1154 Joseph F. Clark Jr., Clark & Warzynski, P.A., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Timothy A. Carn

OPINION GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge. Appellee/Cross-Appellant Lisa Papotto (“Appellee”) is a widow seeking payment of benefits from Appellant/Cross-Appellee Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co. (“Appellant” or “Hartford”) under an accidental death and dismemberment policy in relation to her husband’s death. The policy at issue explicitly excludes lo

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ANN D. MONTGOMERY, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION On March 7, 2014, the undersigned United States District Judge heard oral argument on Plaintiff Mark S. Bowers’s and Defendant Life Insurance Co. of North America’s (“LINA”) cross-motions for summary judgment [Docket Nos. 22, 28]. The parties dispute whether Bowers is eligible for a life waiver of premi

PER CURIAM: Susan Mead participated in a group long-term disability (“LTD”) insurance policy administered by Reliastar Life Insurance Company (“Reliastar”). Mead, who suffers from degenerative cervical disc disease, sought LTD benefits under this policy, asserting that her “total disability” prevented her from performing her own occupation or any other. Reliastar denied her claim,

654 F.Supp.2d 731 (2009) Paul McKAY, Plaintiff, v. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Unumprovident Corporation, and Unum Life Insurance Company, Defendants. Case No. 1:06-CV-267. United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Chattanooga. March 3, 2009. *732 Amanda E. Scales, Eric L. Buchanan, Eric, Buchanan & Associat

OPINION OF THE COURT LEWIS, Circuit Judge. In this appeal, we must determine whether the term “beneficiary,” as defined under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(8), includes partner-employers who are designated to receive benefits under an “employee welfare benefit plan.”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 2023 Term FILED __________________ March 3, 2023 released at 3:00 p.m. No. 21-0735 EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

677 F.3d 228 (2012) Ricky A. DICKENS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, As Plan Administrator for the Bristol-Meyers Squibb Long Term Disability Group Plan, a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellant. No. 11-1434. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Argued: March 22, 2012. Decided: April 20, 2012.

Becker, J. — In a California lawsuit, a jury found that Fluke Corporation had maliciously prosecuted a claim against a competitor. The court entered judgment for both punitive and compensatory damages. Fluke had commercial liability insurance through The Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, insuring Fluke for those sums it became obligated to pay as damages because of injury arising out of malicious prosecution. We hold tha

758 A.2d 213 (2000) The INSURANCE COMPANY OF EVANSTON, Appellee, v. Catherine BOWERS, Administratrix of the Estate of Jarret D. Poston, Deceased, Appellant. Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Argued March 29, 2000. Filed August 9, 2000. *214 William C. Van Scyoc, Erie, for appellant. Stephen Poljak, Pittsburgh, for appellee.<

*889MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THOMAS B. RUSSELL, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. DN 83. The Defendant has responded. DN 86. The Plaintiffs have replied. DN 87. Fully briefed, this matter is now ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is GR

257 F.Supp.2d 1241 (2003) Anthony HEIGHLEY, Plaintiff, v. J.C. PENNEY LIFE INSURANCE CO. and J.C. PENNEY CO., INC., Defendants. No. 02-7794 NM. United States District Court, C.D. California, Western Division. April 14, 2003. *1245 Alan I. Moss, Alan I. Moss Law Offices, San Francisco, CA, for Anthony Heighley, Plaintiff. M

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 21a0248p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ SUSAN CARD, │ Plaintiff-Appellant, │

PER CURIAM: We raised earlier a question about our appellate jurisdiction in this case. No party had raised this issue, but we must raise it sua sponte. Shannon v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 55 F.3d 561, 563 (11th Cir.1995). We invited the parties to submit supplemental briefs. They have done so. After reviewing these submissions, we conclude that the district cour

THOMAS W. THRASH, JR., United States District Judge This is an ERISA action to recover benefits under a group long term disability plan. It is before the Court on the Plaintiff Arthur Lesser, IV's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record [Doc. 28] and the Defendant Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 29]. For the reasons set forth below, the Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Admi

THOMAS M. ROSE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *827Having prevailed in this Court on their argument that California law provided for a deferential standard of review of non-residents, on appeal Defendant Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston agreed with Plaintiff Douglas Pfenning that a de novo standard applied. The United States Cour

KELLY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Sandy Callery appeals from a judgment on the pleadings in favor of Defendant-Appellee Star Buffet. The district court held that the monetary award sought by Ms. Callery did not constitute “appropriate equitable relief’ under § 502(a)(3) of ERISA. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

726 F.Supp. 1400 (1990) John MAZZUKA, Plaintiff, v. SMA LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. No. 89 C 3109. United States District Court, E.D. New York. January 3, 1990. Albert E. Silbowitz, Cedarhurst, N.Y., for plaintiff. Townley & Updike (Joan B. Gross, of counsel), New York City, for defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NICKERSON, Dis

9 F.Supp.2d 460 (1998) Michael BOWERS, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, ACT, INC., NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse, Temple University of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education, University of Iowa, American International College, Defendants. No. Civ. A. 97-2600. United States District Court, D. New Jersey. June 8, 1998.

Beasley, Judge, dissenting. The trial court should be affirmed because there are issues of fact related to whether it was the pre-existing medical condition which resulted in the disability. There is evidence that the immediate cause of the insured’s becoming disabled was an on-the-job injury to his back when he was knocked down by a golf cart on June 12. For one thing, his treating chiropractor testified that