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 AllisonTALANA ORZECHOWSKI v. BOEING COMPANY; AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Below is another case that examines a termination of ERISA long-term disability benefits for abuse of discretion. This is a very important determination...
by Cody AllisonLTD/STD Basics
Below is some basic information about long-term disability policies and short term disability policies to help you better understand the rules relating to...
by Cody AllisonSmith v. Texas Children’s Hospital
The case below discusses whether fraudulent inducement is available as a cause of action under ERISA and, if so, how that claim is to be preserved....