Legal Opinion

Hintz v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

District Court, N.D. Illinois

Decided September 28, 2009No. Case 08-cv-1444PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT M. DOW, JR., District Judge.

In several recent rulings, the Seventh Circuit has emphasized that district court de novo review of benefits denials under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) is not “review” at all. See, e.g., Diaz v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 499 F.3d 640, 644 (7th Cir.2007) (observing that confusion in this realm may be at least partially a product of the “common phrase” de novo review). Rather, when the de novo standard applies, a denial of benefits under an ERISA plan becomes essentially an ordinary contract…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  5. Metropolitan Life Insurance v. GlennSupreme Court of the United States · 2008

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Blankenship v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 2010
  2. Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations v. United States Department of the InteriorDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2014
  3. Gross v. The Peoples Gas Light and Coke CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2022

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API