Legal Opinion

Ex Parte Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 28, 1996No. 1941855PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The only issue presented by this petition for the writ of mandamus is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial in his action against the administrator of an ERISA-regulated employee health care benefit plan.

W.R. Edgeworth, a retired employee of LTV Steel Company, is a member of the LTV Health Care Plan ("the Plan"), a self-funded employee welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) (29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.). MetLife is the administrator of the Plan and has discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits claimed under the…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendonSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. WestoverSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  3. Marlowe Blake and Pam Blake v. Unionmutual Stock Life Ins. Co. Of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1990
  4. Weems v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1995
  5. Haywood v. Russell Corp.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1991

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Ex Parte Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1996
  2. Midwest Security Life Insurance v. StroupIndiana Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Midwest Security Life Insurance v. StroupIndiana Supreme Court · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API