Tag Archives: Heimeshoff

State Law Is Not A “Controlling Statute” Overriding Contractual Limitation

Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 134 S. Ct. 529 (2013), held that a contractual limitation period in an ERISA plan is enforceable as written unless the period is unreasonably short, or a “controlling statute prevents the limitations provisions from taking effect.” In Heimeshoff, there was no dispute that the contractual limitation provision … Continue Reading

ERISA Claim Accrues Upon Clear Repudiation of Claim, Even if There is No Formal Denial Letter

In Witt v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 772 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2014), the court answered the question: “what happens when the defendant says it issued a formal denial letter and the plaintiff says he never received the letter, but it is undisputed the defendant terminated benefits and did not pay the plaintiff any benefits … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Emphasizes that ERISA Plans Are Not Always Pre-Eminent

In a recent decision involving fiduciary duties in Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs), the Supreme Court emphasized an important limit on the pre-eminence of the plan document. Recent Supreme Court decisions, primarily in the welfare benefit plan context, have emphasized the primary importance of the plan document in establishing a fiduciary’s obligations and a participant’s … Continue Reading

Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life: Supreme Court Holds that Plan Can Start Limitation Clock Before Benefit Claim Accrues

In Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 571 U.S. __ (Dec. 16, 2013) , the Supreme Court held that a contractual limitation provision under which the clock begins to run before administrative remedies are exhausted  is enforceable under ERISA, as long as a reasonable time is left after exhaustion is expected to occur. … Continue Reading

Heimeshoff v. Hartford – Supreme Court Briefing

In petitioning for certiorari, Heimeshoff asked the Supreme Court to consider three questions: 1.         When should a statute of limitations accrue for judicial review of an ERISA disability adverse benefit determination? 2.         What notice regarding time limits for judicial review of an adverse benefit determination should an ERISA plan or its fiduciary give the claimant … Continue Reading

Hartford v. Heimeshoff – ERISA Regulations and Equitable Tolling

At the District Court, Heimeshoff also argued that the limitation period in the plan should be equitably tolled because, she claimed the applicable ERISA regulation required Hartford to disclose the limitation period in its denial letter, and it failed to do so. Hartford argued that it was irrelevant whether the regulation required disclosure because Heimeshoff … Continue Reading

Heimeshoff v. Hartford – Motion to Dismiss

Hartford moved to dismiss the action because it was filed after the expiration of the policy’s contractual limitation period. The plain language of the Policy gave her until December 8, 2005 to submit proof of loss: she alleged that her disability began on June 6, 2005; the ninety-day Elimination Period would ordinarily end on September … Continue Reading

Heimeshoff v. Hartford – Facts and Chronology

Wal-Mart established an employee benefit plan to provide disability benefits to its employees, which it funded through a group disability policy issued by Hartford.  The policy contained a contractual limitation provision specifying the deadline for lawsuits: “Legal actions cannot be taken against the Hartford … after … 3 years after the time written proof of … Continue Reading
LexBlog