Legal Opinion
Hancock v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided December 29, 2009No. 08-4161PublishedCited by 52 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HARTZ, Circuit Judge.
Terri Hancock challenges the denial by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) of accidental-death-and-dismemberment (AD & D) benefits for the death of her mother, Verla Hancock. Applying arbitrary-and-capricious review, the United States District Court for the District of Utah affirmed MetLife’s decision. On appeal Ms. Hancock contends (1) that judicial review of MetLife’s decision should be de novo because the clause of her mother’s benefit plan giving MetLife discretion in reviewing claims does not comply with a Utah insurance regulation governing…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. GlennSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Dubbs Ex Rel. Dubbs v. Head Start, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2003
- Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. MoranSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by52 opinions
- LaAsmar v. Phelps Dodge Corp. Life, Accidental Death & Dismemberment & Dependent Life Insurance PlanCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2010
- Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Group Insurance PlanCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2010
- Ariana M. v. Humana Health Plan of Tex., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2018
- Cardoza v. United of Omaha Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2013
- Berges v. Standard InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2010
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.