join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn (June 19, 2008)

Articles Discussing Case:

Dual-Role Administrators, Conflicts of Interest, and ERISA’s Deferential Standard of Review.

Jones Walker • June 30, 2008
The Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) permits a person denied benefits under an employee benefit plan the opportunity to challenge that denial in federal court. Under ERISA, if an administrator has been given discretion to determine eligibility for benefits under the terms of the benefit plan in question, federal courts can overturn eligibility determinations only if they find that the administrator has “abused its discretion.” ERISA jurisprudence has long recognized that if an administrator is operating under a conflict of interest, that conflict of interest must be weighed as a factor in determining whether the administrator’s decision to deny benefits was an abuse of discretion. When the entity that administers an employee benefit plan is also the entity that funds the plan, the courts view that as giving rise to a conflict of interest.