More Insurance Coverage

Expert Analysis

• 4th Circ. Ruling Won't Safeguard Life Insurance Under ERISA

  

  The Fourth Circuit's recent decision in Bellon v. PPG Employee Life, finding that life insurance benefits had vested for certain employees, is a limited exception to a strong trend of courts reading the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to generally countenance the elimination of life insurance coverage for retirees, says Elizabeth Hopkins at Kantor & Kantor.

• 9th Circ. Accidental Death Ruling Raises Critical ERISA Issue

  

  The Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling in Wolf v. Life Insurance Co. of North America helps clarify whether accidental death insurance covers reckless conduct, and raises an important Employee Retirement Income Security Act principle about claim denial that will likely affect future cases, says Mark DeBofsky at DeBofsky Law.

• Expect Fundraising Market To Grow More Competitive

  

  Though the fundraising market's momentum was slowed by inflation and geopolitical unrest earlier this year, rapid deployment of capital is now driving a strong resurgence that will push smaller and middle-market firms to square off against more established managers, say attorneys at Debevoise.

• ERISA Ruling Rightly Addresses Civil Procedure Hurdle

  

  The Eleventh Circuit’s recent opinion in Harris v. Lincoln National Life Insurance demonstrates why courts should treat Employee Retirement Income Security Act cases the same as breach of contract suits by permitting the parties to utilize the full panoply of rights afforded by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, says Mark DeBofsky at DeBofsky Law.

• Justices' EPA Ruling Didn't Move Needle On Chevron Doctrine

  

  Though some suggest the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in West Virginia v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency marked the end of a doctrine requiring judicial deference to federal regulators, the ruling merely articulated well-developed precedent on the limits of agency authority, say Dan Wolff and Eryn Howington at Crowell & Moring.

• Dobbs, Workers' Comp. Brief Hint At Biden's Cannabis Stance

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision, combined with the solicitor general’s brief in a workers’ compensation case that the high court recently declined to review, reveals three notable possibilities about the Biden administration’s position on cannabis, say Whitt Steineker and Claire Hodge at Bradley Arant.

• Questions To Consider In High Court FCA Dismissals Case

  

  Next term, when the U.S. Supreme Court reviews whether the government has authority to dismiss a False Claims Act suit after initially declining to proceed with the action in Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, it will likely require the government to intervene before seeking dismissal, says Christina Lehm at Nelson Mullins.

• High Court Will Eventually Need To Resolve Cannabis Issues

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to resolve whether federal law protects employers who do not comply with state requirements for medical marijuana reimbursements is a blow to the cannabis industry, but ongoing conflicts between state and federal cannabis laws mean the court will likely eventually need to get involved, says David Standa at Greenspoon Marder.

• 2nd Circ. Ruling Highlights ERISA Determination Deadlines

  

  As seen in the Second Circuit’s recent McQuillin v. Hartford decision, the deadlines for deciding Employee Retirement Income Security Act claims and appeals have teeth, and there are consequences when a plan administrator fails to comply, says Mark DeBofsky at DeBofsky Sherman.

• NYC Office Tower Ch. 11 Shines Light On Blocking Provisions

  

  PMW Management's Chapter 11 filing, which recently received extra time to submit a restructuring plan, highlights courts' increasing skepticism of bankruptcy blocking provisions and favoritism toward leaving bankruptcy restructuring plans in the hands of the debtor, say Jeff Marwil and Ashley Weringa at Proskauer.

• What's At Stake In Justices' FCA Qui Tam Dismissal Review

  

  The Supreme Court's decision next term in U.S. v. Executive Health Resources could hold that the government cannot dismiss a qui tam action in which it initially declined intervention, which would mean the government must expend more resources vetting False Claims Act cases and give relators free rein as prosecutors of their cases, say attorneys at Ropes & Gray.

• How To Avert Unlawful Poaching Amid Rising Antitrust Risks

  

  Despite the uptick in labor market antitrust enforcement actions, no-poach agreements can be helpful in preventing unfair competition resulting from misuse of confidential or competitively sensitive information — when tailored appropriately and used with best practices to reduce risk, say attorneys at Ropes & Gray.

• Skinny Labels' Future May Hinge On Teva Petitioning Justices

  

  Generic-drug makers may get much-needed clarity on their use of so-called skinny labels, which only seek approval for unpatented uses, if Teva Pharmaceuticals petitions for certiorari in the GlaxoSmithKline Coreg case by its July 11 deadline, says Paul Kalish at Fox Rothschild.