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 AllisonThe Supreme Court Decision in Metropolitan Life v. Glenn
The case below examines the conflict of interest a plan administrator may have in the denial or payment of benefits under a long-term disability plan. If...
by Cody AllisonOakley v. Remy International, Inc.
In this 2010 Middle District of Tennessee Case, the only connection between Tennessee and the putative class action filed under the Labor Management...
by Cody AllisonExhaustion of Remedies
Below is an example of a provision in a long-term disability policy that can act as a "roadblock" to making a successful claim through the courts. In this...