Legal Opinion
Snook v. Penn State Geisinger Health Plan
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Decided January 31, 2003No. 4:CV-00-1339PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
McCLURE, District Judge.
BACKGROUND:
The sole issue before us is whether a claim under Pennsylvania’s bad-faith statute, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8371, is preempted by ERISA.
Plaintiffs Michael and Cassandra Snook (the Snooks) filed a three-count amended complaint against the Penn State Geisinger Health Plan (Geisinger), their ERISA-controlled employee benefit plan. The complaint focuses on a dispute over Geis-inger’s failure to provide coverage for their son Austin’s brain surgery. Count I of the complaint alleges a cause of action under ERISA’s civil enforcement provision, § 502(a), 29 U.S.C.…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Pilot Life Insurance v. DedeauxSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Hospital Building Co. v. Trustees of Rex HospitalSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Union Labor Life Insurance v. PirenoSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Maio v. Aetna, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- James Barber v. Unum Life Insurance Company of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2004
- Hollaway v. UNUM Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2003
- Nguyen v. Healthguard of Lancaster, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2003
- Hollaway v. UNUM Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2003