No. 21-879

Gregory Mayer v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company

Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2021-12-14
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived Experienced Counsel
Tags: benefit-determination benefit-determinations choice-of-law commerce-clause de-novo-review erisa erisa-preemption judicial-review preemption
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Arbitration ERISA SocialSecurity
Latest Conference: 2022-02-18
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether state law prescribing de novo judicial review for challenged benefit determinations is preempted by ERISA, and whether enforcing such a state law with regard to a beneficiary residing outside the state violates the Commerce Clause

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1) Isastate law prescribing de novo judicial review for challenged benefit determinations, regardless of any discretion the Plan grants to the administrator, preempted by ERISA? If not, does enforcing such a state law with regard to the court challenge of a beneficiary who resides outside of the state in which the Plan was delivered violate the Commerce Clause (as the Second Circuit ruled below)? 2) Should lower courts assessing challenged benefit determinations enforce choice-of-law provisions contained in an ERISA Plan and, if so, which of the differing approaches employed by the circuits should a lower court apply?

Docket Entries

2022-02-22
Petition DENIED.
2022-01-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/18/2022.
2022-01-05
Waiver of right of respondent Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company to respond filed.
2021-12-09
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 13, 2022)

Attorneys

Gregory Mayer
Michael James ConfusioneHegge & Confusione, LLC, Petitioner
Michael James ConfusioneHegge & Confusione, LLC, Petitioner
Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company
Patrick W. BegosRobinson & Cole LLP, Respondent
Patrick W. BegosRobinson & Cole LLP, Respondent