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
Good ERISA Long-Term Disability Case involving Fibromyalgia
Fibromyalgia is a debilitating disease that many people suffer from, and it can be a solid basis for a long-term disability claim. The secret for making a...
Good ERISA Long-Term Disability Case involving Fibromyalgia
Beware of ERISA Contractual Limitations Periods
As we discussed in a earlier post, sometimes folks can get into trouble with the various provisions of their long-term disability policies, especially with...
Beware of ERISA Contractual Limitations Periods
Sixth Circuit Reverses ERISA Disgorgement Award
In this case, the Sixth Circuit reversed a panel decision relating to "appropriate equitable relief." As one can see, these decisions can often be...