Legal Opinion

Cecil Ray Arnold v. Life Insurance Company of North America

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Decided March 1, 1990No. 89-8374PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge:

This is an appeal from the dismissal by the trial court of appellant Arnold’s complaint in which he had alleged defendant Life Insurance Company of North America had refused to pay for the loss of plaintiff’s sight in one eye.

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The insurance policy in question was provided to the plaintiff by his employer under an employee welfare benefit plan. His claim, therefore, fell within the purview of the Employee Retirement Insurance Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (ERISA). The plan administrator ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Pilot Life Insurance v. DedeauxSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. Smith v. Great American Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1972
  5. Arnold v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United StatesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1988

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Parker v. Metropolitan Life, InsuranceDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee · 1995
  2. Buchanan v. Reliance Standard Life InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1998
  3. Tingle v. Pacific Mutual InsuranceDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1993
  4. Stvartak v. Eastman Kodak Co.District Court, M.D. Florida · 1996
  5. Lipscomb v. Transac, Inc.District Court, M.D. Georgia · 1990

8 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