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
Check Your ERISA Plan Statute of Limitations Language
As with any area of the law, the statute of limitations is of utmost importance in ERISA plans. A statute of limitations is a barrier in the law or in the...
ERISA Conflict: Summary Plan Description (SPD) v. Policy Language
One of the biggest problems you may encounter with making a long-term disability claim is the actual policy language versus the summary plan description....
LTD Delay………..
Below is a discussion of the problems associated with making a claim when suffering from CFIDS. Making such a long term disability claim can be very...