Jurisdiction
At issue is ERISA Preemption and the
"Removal" of a Case from State to Federal Court
(Also See "Wrong Without a Remedy" Cases)
- UNUM v. Ward (U.S. Supreme Court, 97-1868 April 1999) Concerns ERISA's "Saving Clause." (See Also McCarran-Ferguson Act, Metropolitan Life v. Massachussets, Pilot Life v. Dedeaux) State laws mandating insurance contract terms are saved from preemption under ERISA Section 1144 (b)(2)(A).
- McDonald v. Damian et. al. (a 3d Circuit, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 7/99 decision (cite 99 CV 598) Superb discussion of precedent on the ERISA preemption vs. the well-pleaded complaint rule. Also in this case the District Court remands the case to state court, a very unusual outcome. (Case concerns quality of treatment under an ERISA medical insurance plan, not LTD, but should be read for it's clarity of thinking.)
- Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133 (12/90) Does ERISA preempt a state common law claim that an employee was unlawfuly discharged to prevent his attainment of benefits under a plan covered by ERISA? Yes, it does preempt it.
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724 (1985) This is a background read case to help get up to speed on the ERISA Saving Clause discussion. Here's the decision: "We hold that Massachusetts' mandated-benefit law is a "law which regulates insurance" and so is not pre-empted by ERISA as it applies to insurance contracts purchased for plans subject to ERISA. We further hold that the mandated-benefit law as applied to a plan negotiated pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement subject to NLRA is not pre-empted by federal labor law."
- Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (1987) Another "Get up to speed on the ERISA Saving Clause" (and "Deemer Clause") discussion. (Pre-emption). Section II of the decision is a "Must Read." NOTE: Part of this case applies DIRECTLY to what you can ask the Court to do for you (what "relief" can you get). So, we repeat this case in the Recovery section.
- Met Life v. Taylor (US Supreme Court 1987) 481 U.S. 58 CT:USSC, DT:19870406 Claims under ERISA 502(a)(1)(B) are removable to federal court, under the doctrine of "Complete Preemption", overriding the "Well-Pleaded Complaint" rule.
Note: the Pilot Life v. Dedeaux and MetLife v. Taylor cases were released almost together. Read both for a full understanding of the Supreme Court's 1987 thinking.
Return to the Case Law Index Page
Click Here To Suggest A Case For Us To Include
Return to the ERISA LTD LITIGATION Home Page