The 2nd Circuit has clarified the standard of review of an administrator's denial of benefits where there are competing benefit plan descriptions. Addressing an issue of first impression under ERISA, the panel held that a company's attempt to alter the terms of a summary plan description was ineffective as to a disabled employee. One issue in dispute was whether the term "guaranteed minimum compensation" referred to a salary or was meant to be a draw on future commissions.
March 21, 2006 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
A federal appeals panel has clarified the standard of review of an administrator’s denial of benefits where there are competing benefit plan descriptions.
Addressing an issue of first impression under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that a company’s attempt to alter the terms of a summary plan description was ineffective as to a disabled employee in Gibbs v. CIGNA Corp., 05-3879-cv.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
