Blankenship v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
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
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. GlennSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Black & Decker Disability Plan v. NordSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Conkright v. FrommertSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- 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
- Helton v. AT & T Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2013
- Alexandra H. v. Oxford Health Insurance Inc. Freedom Access PlanCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2016
- Wanda Crowder v. The Delta Air Line, Inc. Family-Care Savings PlanCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2020
- Diane G. Melech v. Life Insurance Company of North AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2014
- Bloom v. Hartford Life & Accident InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2013
125 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.