Legal Opinion

Mary Fontaine v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Decided September 4, 2015No. 14-1984PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HAMILTON, Circuit Judge.

In 1989, the Supreme Court held that courts should apply de novo review in suits challenging denials of employee benefits governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, better known as ERISA. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989); see 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1). But there was a catch. If the benefit plan provided expressly for a different, more deferential standard of review, Firestone said, that specific provision would control over the default rule of de novo review. 489 U.S. at 115, 109 S.Ct. 948.…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Pilot Life Insurance v. DedeauxSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
  4. Metropolitan Life Insurance v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Aetna Health Inc. v. DavilaSupreme Court of the United States · 2004

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

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Ariana M. v. Humana Health Plan of Tex., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2018
  2. Orzechowski v. Boeing Co. Non-Union Long-Term Disability Plan, Plan Number 625Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
  3. Ellis v. Liberty Life Assurance CoCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2020
  4. Pennsylvania Chiropractic Ass'n v. Independence Hospital Indemnity Plan, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2015
  5. Olayinka Oye v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2025

30 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