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 AllisonLoper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
If you need assistance navigating your claim for short term or long-term disability benefits under ERISA, or it is time to sue the insurance company,...
by Cody AllisonSmith v. Aetna Life Insurance Co.
Smith v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. (4th Cir., 2024) Ruling: The court reversed a long-term disability (LTD) benefit denial, finding that Aetna...
by Cody AllisonScanlon v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am.
From an article by Matthew Maloney for the American Bar Association: Just over one year ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh...