Newman v. Standard Ins. Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. Chadwick v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

    498 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (E.D. Cal. 2007)   Cited 5 times

    In such cases, courts have not granted discovery. See e.g. Shemano-Krupp v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84352, *29-31 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2006) (denying discovery where there was no evidence of a conflict of interest beyond the "apparent conflict which exists when the insurer both funds and administers the plan"); Baldoni v. Unumprovident, Ill. Tool Works, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14127, *15 (D. Or. Feb. 26, 2007) (denying discovery when an insurer both administers and funds the plan unless the plaintiff makes "a threshold showing"); Newman v. Standard Ins. Co., 997 F. Supp. 1276, 1280-81 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (denying discovery when an insurer both administers and funds the plan because of "immense practical problems associated with this position," including expensive litigation which "flies in the face of the purpose of ERISA"). B. Applicable Standard of Review — Abuse of Discretion

  2. Stanley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

    312 F. Supp. 2d 786 (E.D. Va. 2004)   Cited 14 times
    Noting that "the Fourth Circuit precludes discovery of non-record information, and therefore prohibits courts probing into the recesses of the administrator's mind"

    To allow discovery in every ERISA case involving an administrator who is also the funding source "would involve far-reaching, open-ended, nearly limitless discovery." Newman v. Standard Ins. Co.. 997 F. Supp. 1276,1280 (C.D. Cal. 1998). The tremendous expenses thereby incurred would frustrate the prompt and affordable resolution of benefit claims. Plaintiff cites several Ninth Circuit cases for the proposition that the court is not limited to the administrative record when determining whether an actual conflict of interest has tainted the benefit decision.

  3. Stills v. GBMC Healthcare, Inc.

    48 F. Supp. 2d 495 (D. Md. 1999)   Cited 6 times
    Upholding denial of benefits, where administrator's consultant determined that no objective information had been provided to support disability claim

    " Thus, the plain language of the plan confers discretionary authority on Standard to determine benefits eligibility. See Snow v. Standard Ins. Co., 87 F.3d 327, 330 (9th Cir. 1996) (plan granting authority to determine eligibility for benefits inherently confers discretion); Newman v. Standard Ins. Co., 997 F. Supp. 1276, 1278 (C.D.Cal. 1998) (interpreting identical language as providing Standard with discretionary authority). Accordingly, I will review Standard's decision to deny Ms. Stills's short-term disability claim under an abuse of discretion standard.

  4. Rosenthal v. Long Term Disability Plan Epstein

    Case No.: CV 98-4246-ABC (MANx) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 1999)

    In Newman v. Standard Insurance Co., the plaintiff requested the court to allow discovery beyond the administrative record regarding a potential conflict in defendant's decision to deny plaintiff benefits. Newman v. Standard Insurance Co., 997 F.Supp. 1276, 1280 (C.D. Cal. 1998). The court refused because of practical and policy considerations in ERISA cases.