Legal Opinion
Kay v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company
District Court, S.D. California
Decided April 12, 2021No. 3:19-cv-00209Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANNE M. KAY, Case No.: 19-cv-209-MMA (AHG) 11 ORDER FOLLOWING BENCH 12 Plaintiff, TRIAL v. 13 HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT 14 INSURANCE COMPANY 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff Anne M. Kay (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendant 20 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company (“Hartford” or “Defendant”) pursuant to 21 the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (“ERISA”). 22 See Doc. No. 1 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff alleges two causes of action under 29 U.S.C. 23 §§…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Varity Corp. v. HoweSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- CIGNA Corp. v. AmaraSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Rex T. KEARNEY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- Montour v. Hartford Life & Accident InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.