Supreme Court to Review Statute of Limitations for Denial of ERISA Claims

04 November 2013 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

On Tuesday, October 15, 2013, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case likely to have wide-ranging consequences for employers who offer employee benefit plans under Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”).

The petitioner in the case is a former Wal-Mart employee who became permanently disabled. She filed a claim for long-term disability benefits under the employer’s benefit plan, which contains a three-year statute of limitations commencing on the date that proof of loss was required to be submitted under the plan. The administrator of the benefit plan denied the employee’s claim, and she sued in to challenge the denial. Her suit was dismissed as untimely because it was filed more than three years after the date on which proof of loss was required under the plan.

The employee is appealing the Second Circuit’s decision affirming that dismissal. She contends that a beneficiary’s claim for wrongful denial of disability benefits under ERISA should not be allowed to accrue limitations purposes until the ERISA plan’s internal benefits resolution process has been fully and completely exhausted, regardless of the limitations period set forth in the plan. The employee’s core argument is that ERISA requires predictability, and that the only way to provide maximum predictability to employees is by ensuring that the statute of limitations does not begin to accrue until there has been a final denial of a claim. In essence, the Supreme Court is being asked to decide between dual goals of predictability, on the one hand, and enforcement of contractually bargained-for plan language, on the other. The outcome is sure to have broad ramifications for employers everywhere. Stay tuned.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights