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 AllisonA Great ERISA Decision – Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
This court opinion once again examines what sort of decision is "arbitrary and capricious" when a plan adjuster denies a claim. In these type of claims,...
by Cody AllisonStrong ERISA LTD Opinion From The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
The case below discusses what evidence of disability a claimant must produce and what evidence an administrator must consider in denying a claim. Our law...
by Cody AllisonERISA Long-Term Disability Procedures Have Changed.
Below are highlights to updates to the long-term disability procedures under ERISA. These things change from time to time and it is important to stay...