Dorsey v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KATZ, Senior District Judge.
Now before the court are cross-motions for summary judgment in the above-eap-tioned action filed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq. Because the court finds that the insurance company’s decision to deny benefits was arbitrary and capricious, the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied.
I. Background
Plaintiff Cheryl Dorsey brings this action against the defendant, Provident Life and Accident Insurance (Provident), following…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Williams v. Borough of West ChesterCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989
- Maria H. Pinto v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Gilbertson v. Allied Signal, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2003
- Post v. Hartford InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007
- Lamanna v. Special Agents Mutual Benefits Ass'nDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2008
- Conrad v. Reliance Standard Life InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2003
- Edgerton v. CNA InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2002
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.