The Ninth Circuit ruled that a district court erred by failing to consider the entire course of the litigation when analyzing a request for attorney’s fees under ERISA and remanded the case for a calculation of fees. A plan participant filed suit against a plan and insurer seeking disability benefits. The plan, in turn, filed

The Fifth Circuit upheld the reimbursement and subrogation terms found in a welfare benefit plan’s one-page SPD that also served as the plan document. Plaintiff, a plan beneficiary, received $71,644.77 from the plan to cover medical expenses incurred as a result of injuries sustained during a laparoscopic exam. Plaintiff’s injuries were allegedly the result of

The court in Tussey v. ABB Inc., No. 2:06-cv-04305 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 9, 2015), a long-running suit alleging that ABB failed to monitor recordkeeping fees and improperly mapped participants’ investments (previously reported on here), awarded class counsel $11.7 million in attorneys’ fees and affirmed its earlier award of $2.28 million in costs and

The Third Circuit held that the catalyst theory of recovery applies to ERISA cases when determining whether to award attorneys’ fees.  In this case, Plaintiffs (two individuals and two pharmacies) filed suit against Defendant insurance companies for denial of benefits under ERISA.  After their motion to dismiss was denied, Defendants paid the claims in full.  Both parties then sought attorneys’ fees and costs, which the district court denied.  The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to deny fees, but remanded on the issue of whether Plaintiffs were entitled to interest on the delayed payment of benefits.  Ultimately, the Defendants agreed to pay $68,000 in interest to Plaintiffs and the case settled.