Metro. Life INS. Co. v. Glenn (554 U.S. 105)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 19, 2008 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 554 U.S. 105 · 128 S. Ct. 2343
- Decided
- June 19, 2008
- Term
- October Term 2007
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) permits a person denied benefits under an employee benefit plan to challenge that denial in federal court. 88 Stat. 829, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 1001 et seq.; see § 1132(a)(1)(B). Often the entity that administers the plan, such as an employer or an insurance company, both determines whether an employee is eligible for benefits and pays benefits out of its own pocket. We here decide that this dual role creates a conflict of interest; that a reviewing court should consider that conflict as a factor in determining whether the plan administrator has abused its discretion in denying benefits; and that the significance of the factor will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case. See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U. S. 101, 115 (1989). I Petitioner Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Met-Life) serves as both an administrator and the insurer of Sears, Roebuck & Company’s long-term disability insurance plan, an ERISA-governed employee benefit plan. See App. 182a-183a; 29 U. S. C. § 1003. The plan grants MetLife (as administrator) discretionary authority to determine whether an employee’s claim for benefits is valid; it simultaneously provides that MetLife (as insurer) will itself pay valid benefit claims. App. 181a-182a. Respondent Wanda Glenn, a…
Excerpt of a 22,911-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.