This is disgraceful. This and the giving Corps your land decision. See what happens when you elect conservatives who pack the court with corporate toadies?

I don't get how ERISA works. And I don't understand why the SCOTUS can't make a company pay the benefits after reviewing the signed documents. I just don't get it. I'm not saying some corporations are greedy, I get that, but how can a judge basically throw it out?

This means that a company can deny an employee (or former employee) the benefits for which he paid, and only have to pay back the premiums paid by that employee. What a scam.

It sounds to me like a bureaucratic oversight as opposed to any malfeasance. The guy didn't meet the criteria for the policy and so was denied. It sucks, to be sure, but lots of shitty things happen to lots of decent people, and the SCOTUS doesn't take the time to address each one of them, even legitimate ones, which this appears not to be.

There are an awful lot of sob stories out there.

Out of curiosity, those who think that the wife should be able to sue the insurers for exorbitant amounts of money... why do you think that?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Yeh, crying liberal cow, she only paid the money all these years in pure good faith like the company told her to, what's the whiny bitch want, justice?

She either been a victim of negligence (a 'bureaucratic oversight' is a mistake, and a mistake qualifies as negligence) or, if the company never intended to pay and so deliberately didn't tell her, she's the victim of fraud. In either case she used to be able to sue for at least what she paid for but apparently, the SCOTUS now takes your view that corporations can do no wrong, so we little people are just SOL if they decide to fuck us.

Compassionate conservatism at its best. We can't rely upon our insurance but rich people can still buy guns to protect themselves from all those they've swindled out of their life savings.

Trying to call this a conservative or liberal issue shows ignorance of when ERISA was written and adopted and amended, and also of the fact pattern quoted in the article in post 1.

Plainly, ERISA is a poor law as written. The SCOTUS can only interpret the law that is on the books.

The Congress can change the law, but hasn't even though they know about the flaws.

The Executive has asked the courts to clarify the law, but the Executive cannot change the law.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

The SCOTUS, like any court, can overturn laws which are against the public interest because they work at cross purposes to other laws, are manifestly unjust, "toothless" etc. Besides, didn't they just refuse to even hear the case?

The Bush appointees are telling the corps loud and clear, we, the people, can elect who we please, they will keep the plutocracy in charge anyway. Bushco will still be screwing us 20 years from now.

Yeah, who's President doesn't really matter.

You should tell the conservative partisans that I'm one of them now. They all accuse me of being a liberal when acting just like you.

But, your assuming that anyone who disagrees with you must be your idealogical twin on the other side of the fence and subsequent strawman arguments dismissed as the hysterical pap they are, you haven't really made a strong argument in the first place.

The company enacted a policy and the dying man and his wife were unaware of it, perhaps through no fault of their own. Nevertheless, he didn't meet the criteria for receiving the payout, and thus didn't.

I've made no claim to agree with the law per se. I'm only pointing out what the SCOTUS agreeing not to hear it, in this case, doesn't seem like a big deal. As I've said, there are no shortage of sob stories, and hysterically shrieking "there oughta be a law!!!" for each particular one doesn't really do the level of discourse any justice nor does it typically result in sensible policy, across the board. Perhaps I'll create a thread with gruesome images of people wearing red shirts killed in car crashes and then accuse anyone who disagrees with my assessment that that "compassionate conservatives" are fighting laws against red shirts and driving because they love guns.

Another way to look at it, in Devil's Advocate terms, is that allowing people to sue for large sums of money under these circumstances would cause all of our premiums to increase substantially.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

From your source:

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

"Through no fault of their own" indeed, according to the story it was through the direct fault of the company, which didn't tell them of the change.

"I'm sorry I'll not be able to pay you for the work you did for me, but our new policy, which we institituted after we made a contract with you and never told you about, says everyone now works for free."

I may try this with my electric bill next month, since one side can now unilaterally change contracts in their favor I'll just tell them they were unaware that they now have to supply me for free. Just a bureaucratic oversight on my part

But then, it's not a big deal when corporations overturn the whole concept of contract and 'meeting of the minds' just when we do we still have to pay our bills anyway.

And now it damages insurance cos to make the payouts they promised? I would think Spherion and their insurer (did the article say who they were, I can't find it if they did? )would lose a lot more through the thousands who will no longer deal with them after this. Would you?

It was Bush who APPOINTED these right wing corporate toadies, but now a few window dressing protests on his part absolves him of all responsibilty Riiigghtt.

Oh, and Congress could act on this but hasnt. OK, finally, here's one thing where I think the Democrats are as much jerks as the Republicans

I would think that Spherion would have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of the insured.
To fail to notify them of a provision which could have been easily met seems to me to be a breach of that fiduciary relationship.

__________________
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi (R)
on McCain

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R)
on McCain

“My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

McCain on McCain

so lets get straight to the point Drake, the SC of Rehnquist was Con. see; decision of 93 and the SC is a “con” court now? I see....

__________________
Obama-e fungis nati homines....

Basically what happened here was that he was never actually entitled to the coverage under the new plan, but this was not properly communicated to him, since he was not entitled to the coverage persay, he was not entitled to equitable relief for the amount of the coverage, but merely the amount he had paid for that coverage.

Actually, courts (behaving properly) cannot summarily throw out a LAW based on public policy or because it conflicts with another law. They MAY deny equitable relief which may be warranted under common law, but which conflicts with public policy as reflected in statutory law (statutory law trumps common law).

As for overturning a law because it conflicts with another law, they don't get to pick and chose which stands and which falls, it is a basic principle that if there are reasonable interpretations of the two laws which would result in them not conflicting, then you cannot give either an interpretation that results in a conflict. If there is no reasonable way to interpret the two laws that would reconcile them to one another, then the one passed most recently is the one which controls.

No, the distinction in this case is that the plaintiff was not in fact contractually entitled to the covereage in the first place. It wasn't that he was denied coverage due to an error, it was that he was not entitled to coverage, and was only told he was in error. That is why he was entitled to only reimbursement of the premiums he paid.

If you are covered under a plan, and you meet all the requirements for coverage, and pay your premiums, they may not summarily deny you coverage you are entitled to under the plan. If, however, your coverage was itself in error, they may deny you the benefits of that coverage provided your premiums are reimbursed.

Now, common law principles may have entitled the plaintiff to something more in the way of equitable relief, but as John Drake correctly asserted (but misapplied) Courts may, and routinely, do set aside equitable relief called for under common law if it conflicts with public policy/statutory provisions.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

How is suing for the amount of coverage exorbitant? There's no mention of punitive damages.

Whether I have a life insurance policy for $10 million, and post-death, the policy isn't paid, suing the insurance company for $10 million is not exorbitant. If the coverage was $1, and the company was sued for $10 million it would be exorbitant.