Cases

PER CURIAM: In this action based on diversity jurisdiction, plaintiff Virginia Cook appeals the decision of the district court granting summary judgment to Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Finding that the contract between the insured and the insurer clearly provided for interest payments during the lifetime of the primary benefic

COOK, Circuit Judge, dissenting. In reversing the district court, the majority decides an unargued and unpre-served issue. Contrary to the majority’s characterization of his argument, Moyer nowhere contends that the claim-denial letter violated 29 U.S.C. § 1133. Indeed, Moyer’s brief neither mentions the legal requirements for claim-denial letters nor *508

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER SPATT, District Judge. On April 10, 2012, the Plaintiff Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“the Plaintiff’) commenced this action by filing a Complaint in interpleader. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that it is a mere stakeholder that could be exposed to double liability arising from the Defendant William L. Mitchell, Jr.’s (“Mitchell”) and the Defendant Charmai

Alice Robie Resnick, J. The issue presented is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying class certification on the basis that appellants failed to satisfy Civ.R. 23(B)(3)’s requirement of predominance and superiority.2 For the reasons that follow, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to give adequate consideration to whether the asserted claims are susceptible

OPINION OF THE COURT Michael D. Stallman, J. These contempt motions submitted on default in two unre*453lated actions are decided jointly. They raise the same issues: What is the proper method of service of an information subpoena? What is a sufficient predicate for contempt? These issues are especially significant, given the volume of uncontested cont

ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS Supreme Court Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Hamer, 2013 IL 114234 Caption in Supreme METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellees, v. Court: BRIAN HAMER, Director of the Illinois Department of Revenue, et al., Appellants. Docket No. 114234 Filed June 20, 2013 Held

ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS Appellate Court Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Hamer, 2012 IL App (1st) 110400 Appellate Court METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and UNITARY Caption SUBSIDIARIES, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BRIAN HAMER, as Director of the Illinois Department of Revenue, ALEXI GIANNOULIAS, as Treasurer of the Stat

ACCEPTED 01-15-00147-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 10/26/2015 11:35:19 PM

ORDER AND REASONS STAGG, Chief Judge. This court determined in a Memorandum Ruling dated December 23, 1987 that plaintiffs’ state claims were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Act of 1974 (hereinafter “ERISA”). The only remaining issue is whether plaintiffs are entitled to any relief pursuant to their claims under 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(1)(B) and (g)(1). Since a cause of action under these prov

675 F.Supp. 1497 (1987) Carla RASMUSSEN and Christian Rasmussen v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and Georgia-Pacific Corporation. Civ. A. No. 84-3300. United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division. December 23, 1987. *1498 Byron A. Richie, Richie & Richie, Shreveport, La., for plaintiffs. Cald

Appellate Case: 21-4110 Document: 010110956505 Date Filed: 11/21/2023 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS November 21, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION JOHN E. OTT, United States Chief Magistrate Judge. In this action originally filed in state court, Plaintiff Sharon Blair brings a claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., alleging that her Long Term Disability (“LTD”) benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan were wrongfully terminated. (Doc.

ORDER AMY TOTENBERG, District Judge. This case is brought under the Employee Retirement Income . Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. Plaintiff Sandra Reid (“Reid”) contends that Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) wrongfully terminated her long term disability benefits after 24 months despite substantial medical documentation demonstrating

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge. Linda Pralutsky filed an action against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) seeking to enforce a claimed right to benefits under MetLife’s long-term disability plan. After both sides moved for summary judgment, the district court granted Pralutsky’s motion and ordered MetLife to pay past-due benefits to Pralutsky and to reinstate her in the plan as a partic

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD SAYLOR; District Judge. This is a civil action arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. Plaintiff Selma Al-Abbas was a participant in a disability plan as part of her employment with International Busi

Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Cook v. AAA Life Insurance Co., 2014 IL App (1st) 123700 Appellate Court BRIANNAH COOK, a Minor, By and Through BRUCE COOK, Her Caption Father and Next Friend, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AAA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. District & No. First District, First Division

opinion of the court Edward H. Lehner, J. In considering the numerous requests for default judgments in summary nonpayment proceedings submitted during the week ending June 29, 1984, this court must determine, in light of the recent decision in Eight Assoc. v Hynes (102 AD2d 746), whether it has jurisdiction over the various respondents who were allegedly served by conspicuous service. One of

2022 WI App 45 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 2021AP635 †Petition for Review filed Complete Title of Case: PEPSI-COLA METROPOLITAN BOTTLING COMPANY, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COM

BOGGS, Chief Judge. This case presents the questions of whether an ERISA plan’s determination to deny benefits was arbitrary and capricious and, if it was, what remedy this court should order. Patricia Elliott submitted a claim for long-term disability benefits to the administrator of her employer’s employee benefit plan, Metropolitan Life (“MetLife”). MetLife denied Elliott’s c

OPINION AND ORDER JAMES T. MOODY, District Judge. Plaintiffs Linda R. Skinner and James E. Skinner filed a complaint against defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”). (DE # 1.) Plaintiff Linda R. Skinner (“Linda”) states that she and MetLife entered into a life insurance policy which provided that she would no longer need to pay premiums if she became totally disabled. (Id. </