Legal Opinion
Asbestos Workers Local No. 42 Welfare Fund v. Brewster
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided October 22, 2002No. CIV.A.01-181-JJFPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
FARNAN, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 27). For the reasons discussed below, the Defendants’ Motion (D.I. 27) will be granted.
BACKGROUND
This is an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) ease in which the Plaintiff, an ERISA plan (the “Plan”), seeks a declaratory judgment concerning its subrogation rights against the Defendants Thomas L. Brewster, Sr., a Plan participant, and Candace L. Brewster, a Plan beneficiary. (D.I. 20, ¶ 1 & 10).
In 1996, Mrs. Brewster was injured in an automobile accident, and, to date, the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance v. KnudsonSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Chapman v. KlemickCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1993
- Greenwood Mills, Inc. v. BurrisDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2001
3Cited by1 opinion
- Asbestos Workers Local Union No. 42 Welfare Fund v. BrewsterSupreme Court of Delaware · 2007