The Erisa Litigation Podcasts

ERISA Litigation episode 007 contains Bentley Tolk’s (Parr Brown Gee & Loveless, Salt Lake City, UT - ERISA litigation defense) analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision in CIGNA Corp. v. Amara.  The Amara case contains important guidance on misrepresentations, plan reformation, SPDs and equitable remedies under ERISA.

In ERISA litigation episode 006, Bentley Tolk (Parr Brown Gee & Loveless, Salt Lake City, UT) explores how the U.S. Supreme Court case of Hardt v. Reliance Standard Ins. Co. has altered the landscape of attorneys’ fees under ERISA.  Please leave your comments below on the effect of Hardt on ERISA attorneys’ fees.

In ERISA Litigation episode 005, Bentley Tolk (Parr Brown Gee & Loveless, Salt Lake City, UT) examines the U.S. Supreme Court’s April 21, 2010 Conkright v. Frommert decision.  The Conkright decision is significant for its clarification of the standard of review under ERISA when a plan administrator makes an “honest” mistake in interpreting the plan.  According to the Supreme Court, one “honest” mistake in interpreting a plan is not enough to strip a plan administrator of deference for subsequent related interpretations of the plan.  

In ERISA Litigation episode 4 (due to the digital re-mastery of episode 2), Bentley Tolk explores two standard of review cases from the 7th Circuit.

While ERISA Litigation episode 2 has already been released, we are now releasing the digitally remastered version.  As mentioned previously, episode 2 addresses ERISA preemption and post-Glenn precedent.

In the second episode, Bentley Tolk of Parr Brown Gee & Loveless interviews Michael J. Salmanson of Salmanson Goldshaw, PC about some recent cases involving ERISA preemption: Golden Gate Restaurant Ass’n v. City and County of San Francisco, 546 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2008); Golden Gate Restaurant Ass’n v. City and County of San Francisco, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 5191 (9th Cir. Mar. 9, 2009); and American Council of Life Insurers v. Ross, No. 08-1406 (6th Cir. Mar. 18, 2009).  Those cases have important implications for ERISA litigation defense - both in the Ninth and Sixth Circuits, and in Utah and elsewhere. The second portion of the episode addresses how the lower courts have responded to the Supreme Court’s decision in Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 128 S. Ct. 2343 (2008).  Specifically, the episode explores the following cases on this topic: Doyle v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston, 542 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 2008); andMcCauley v. First Unum Life Insur. Co., 551 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2008).