After overturning a district court denial and winning a victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals finding Unum’s interpretation of the self-reported illness clause in its disability insurance policies was arbitrary and capricious (661 F.3d 323), the plaintiff was denied fees on remand. Weitzenkamp v. Unum Life Ins. Co. 2011 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 11095 (E.D.Wisc. Jan. 31, […]
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) provides: “In any action under this title (other than an action described in paragraph 2) by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary, the court in its discretion may allow a reasonable attorney’s fee and costs of action to either party.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1). In Hardt v. […]
The saga of Fitts v. Unum Life Ins.Co. of America, 2010 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 2529 (D.D.C. Jan. 13, 2010), which has spanned more than 10 years, has finally come to an end. The case went to the Court of Appeals twice on the issue of whether Unum’s limitation on the duration of benefits for mental and nervous disorders applied to bipolar disorder suffered by Jane Fitts. After the most recent appellate ruling, which I wrote about in an earlier article (“Struggle over ‘mental illness’ exclusions,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, March 31, 2008), the parties finally reached a settlement.
A recent 2d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, Slupinski v. First Unum Life Insur. Co., 2009 U.S.App.LEXIS 1157 (Jan. 23), offers a textbook lesson on attorney’s fee awards as well as the propriety of prejudgment interest awards under ERISA.
A federal appeals court recently examined the issue of when attorney fees are properly awarded in cases brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in Moon v. Unum Provident Corp., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 22321 (June 29) (published), has tremendous instructive value with respect to awards of attorneys’ fees following a Court of Appeals reversal of benefit denial.