ERISA Life Policy Requires Active Employment to Order Increase in Benefits
Post 5259
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gXJqus8t, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g7qT3y_y and at https://lnkd.in/gUduPkn4, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
In Katherine Crow Albert Guidry, Individually And On Behalf Of The Estate Of Jason Paul Guidry v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al, Civil Action No. 25-18-SDD-RLB, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (January 7, 2026) Guidry brought suit to recover life insurance proceeds she alleges were wrongfully withheld following her husband’s death on January 9, 2024.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Jason Guidry was employed by Waste Management, which provided life insurance coverage through Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”). Plaintiff contends that after Jason’s death, the defendants (MetLife, Waste Management, and Life Insurance Company of North America (“LINA”)) engaged in conduct intended to confuse and ultimately deny her entitlement to $504,000 in Optional Life Insurance proceeds.
The Complaint cites violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and three Louisiana statutes.
Plaintiff transmitted Jason Guidry’s death certificate to MetLife, which reflected January 9, 2024, as the date of death. On February 27, 2024, MetLife paid Plaintiff $63,018.12 for Basic Life Insurance benefits plus interest. However, MetLife denied the claim for Optional Life Insurance, explaining Jason Guidry elected Optional Life Insurance coverage to be effective January 1, 2024. The Death Certificate issued by the State of Louisiana indicates that Jason Guidry passed away on January 9, 2024. MetLife concluded Jason Guidry was not “actively at work” on January 1, 2024, as required under the Plan for the optional coverage to take effect.
LAW:
The central legal issues:
1. whether the relevant employee benefit plan vests discretionary authority in the plan administrator to determine eligibility for benefits and interpret plan terms, and
2. whether ERISA preempts all related state law claims.
ANALYSIS
Where the plan administrator has discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan, courts must base their review of the legal and factual findings of the administrator’s decision under an abuse of discretion standard.
The Court found that the Plan clearly vests the Administrator with discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits and to construe the terms of the plan.
The Motion was Granted.
The Court found that Plaintiff has no claim against Waste Management. Waste Management did not make the decision to deny Optional Life Insurance benefits. Accordingly, the Court granted Waste Management’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record.
Liability of MetLife
Plaintiff’s claim against MetLife also lacks merit. Under the abuse of discretion standard, a court’s review of the administrator’s decision need not be particularly complex or technical; it need only assure that the administrator’s decision falls somewhere on a continuum of reasonableness – even if on the low end.
The Court found that MetLife’s denial of Plaintiff’s claim for Optional Life Insurance coverage was not an abuse of discretion. MetLife reasonably denied coverage on the basis that Jason Guidry was not “actively at work” on the date the Optional Life Insurance coverage took effect. Accordingly, MetLife’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record was granted.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Life Insurance Company of North America’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of ERISA Preemption was GRANTED;
2. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company’s and Waste Management National Services, Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was GRANTED;
3. Waste Management’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record was GRANTED;
4. MetLife’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record was GRANTED;
5. LINA’s Response Brief on the Merits, which the Court construes as a Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, was GRANTED;
6. Plaintiff’s Opening Brief on the Merits,which the Court construes as a Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, was DENIED.
7. The Motions to Dismiss filed by MetLife and Waste Management was terminated as moot and
8. Plaintiff’s action was dismissed with prejudice.
ZALMA OPINION
ERISA claims are federal and always resolved in the USDC. The optional coverage Mr. Guidrey ordered needed to be ordered while he was actively employed. Since he was in hospital close to death he attempted to increase his life insurance benefits. He died before he could go back to work and get the benefits he desired and the ERISA decision maker properly applied the policy.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
