Tort trial & insurance practice law journal最新文献_第2页

Recent developments in health insurance, life insurance, and disability insurance case law. 健康保险、人寿保险和残疾保险判例法的最新发展。

Tort trial & insurance practice law journal Pub Date : 2008-01-01

Joseph J Hasman, William A Chittenden, Elizabeth G Doolin, Julie F Wall

{"title":"Recent developments in health insurance, life insurance, and disability insurance case law.","authors":"Joseph J Hasman, William A Chittenden, Elizabeth G Doolin, Julie F Wall","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This survey reviews significant state and federal court decisions from 2006 and 2007 involving health, life, and disability insurance. Also reviewed is a June 2008 Supreme Court decision in the disability insurance realm, affirming that a conflict of interest exists when an ERISA plan sponsor or insurer fulfills the dual role of determining plan benefits and paying those benefits but noting that the conflict is merely one factor in considering the legality of benefit denials. In addition, this years' survey includes compelling decisions in the life and health arena, including cases addressing statutory penalties and mandated benefits, as well as some ERISA decisions of note. This year, the Texas Supreme Court held that Texas's most recent version of the prompt payment statute abolished the common law interpleader exception and allowed the prevailing adverse claimant in an interpleader action filed beyond the sixty-day statutory period to recover statutory interest and attorney fees from the insurer. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals of New York upheld the constitutionality of a statute mandating coverage for contraceptives in those employer-sponsored health plans that offer prescription drug coverage, including those plans sponsored by faith-based social service organizations. In the ERISA context, litigants continue to fight over the standard of review with varying results. In a unique assault on the arbitrary and capricious standard of review, the Fourth Circuit found that an ERISA plan abused its discretion when it failed to apply the doctrine of contra proferentem to construe ambiguous plan terms against itself. In more hopeful news for plan insurers, the Tenth Circuit held that claimants are not entitled to review and rebut medical opinions generated during the administrative appeal of a claim denial before a final decision is reached unless such reports contain new factual information.</p>","PeriodicalId":86278,"journal":{"name":"Tort trial & insurance practice law journal","volume":"43 3","pages":"473-517"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"27706252","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}