More and more contracts seem to be moving toward clauses which require the parties to submit to arbitration rather than taking the matter to court. In the case linked below, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit examines the issue of whether or not an arbitration clause in an insurance contract forces the employee to arbitrate all claims or if some claims were excluded from this clause. In this case, Munro v. University of Southern California, the Court examined whether or not an arbitration clause bound employees to settle a dispute in arbitration that was not personal to the employee but rather a dispute brought on behalf of the ERISA plan itself.
As more and more companies move to arbitration clauses, these type of issues will arise. If you need help with your long-term disability claim, call us. We are here to help.
This is the link to the Munro case: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/24/17-55550.pdf
Latest Posts
by Cody AllisonHAISLEY v. SEDGWICK
This is another interesting case which revolves around determining the period when the claimant is disabled. Sometimes, this can be difficult to determine,...
by Cody AllisonEighth Circuit: Hartford Case Involving SSD Offsets
Here is another case involving Social Security Disability offsets as they relate to a long-term disability case. This is a somewhat confusing area of the...
by Cody AllisonAn Article from the Richmond Times-Dispatch
This is an interesting article on disability insurance and how to prepare to make a disability claim. There is a lot of information that the insurer will...