Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Emard v. Hughes Aircraft Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 20, 1998No. 96-56584Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCynthia Holcomb Hall, Circuit Judge
I agree with the majority that ERISA would not prevent imposition of a constructive trust in the circumstances of this case. I write separately, however, to express my disagreement with its treatment of California’s law of community property. Because the application of community property law would require the ERISA plan administrator to distribute the proceeds of Ginger’s life insurance policy to someone other than the named beneficiary, ERISA preemption should apply.
The preemption question raised in this case has implications well beyond the community property context. It is not infrequently…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Susan Cripps, Defendant-Cross-Claimant-Appellant v. Life Insurance Company of North America, Plaintiff-Cross-Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- 21 Employee Benefits Cas. 1341, Pens. Plan Guide (Cch) P 23937j Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Julie A. Marsh, Dana Lyn Weaver and James R. Marsh, IIICourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1997
- Jack B. Buster, A. Lee Petersen v. Ronald E. Greisen Henry P. Head and David L. RatchyeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
- Brandon v. Travelers InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1994
- Krishna v. Colgate Palmolive Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.