Legal Opinion

Blankenship v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Decided June 30, 2011No. 10-10717PublishedCited by 130 opinions

1Per curiam

In this appeal, Plaintiff Frank Blankenship challenges the denial by Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) of his claims for long-term disability benefits. In reviewing those benefits decisions by MetLife, the ERISA plan administrator, we consider whether the decisions were reasonable and entitled to deference. Pointing chiefly to Met-Life’s structural conflict of interest as both administrator and payor of benefits, the district court ruled that MetLife arbitrarily and capriciously denied Blankenship’s benefits requests. We conclude that a reasonable basis supported…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Metropolitan Life Insurance v. GlennSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
  3. Black & Decker Disability Plan v. NordSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  4. Conkright v. FrommertSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
  5. Olan Jett v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc., Medical Expense PlanCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1989

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

3Cited by130 opinions

  1. Helton v. AT & T Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2013
  2. Alexandra H. v. Oxford Health Insurance Inc. Freedom Access PlanCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2016
  3. Wanda Crowder v. The Delta Air Line, Inc. Family-Care Savings PlanCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2020
  4. Diane G. Melech v. Life Insurance Company of North AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2014
  5. Bloom v. Hartford Life & Accident InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2013

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

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

Powered by the Exa API