join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
GET OUR FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTERS!
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More
Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co., 134 S. Ct. 604 (2013)

Articles Discussing Case:

What Happens When The Limitations Provision in the Plan As Applied Creates An Impossible Accrual Date?

Ogletree Deakins • June 30, 2014
Approximately six months ago, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co., 134 S. Ct. 604 (2013), addressed whether an employee benefit plan covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) may include a particular limitations period that starts to run before the cause of action accrues, that is, when the plaintiff can file suit and obtain relief. The Supreme Court held that the plan’s three-year limitations provision was enforceable and barred the employee’s judicial action under ERISA.