Pierre v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins., 502 U.S. 973 (1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Pierre v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins., 502 U.S. 973 (1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1997 · …federal courts owe due deference to an administrator's factual con 645 elusions that reflect a reasonable and impartial judgment. ⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …federal courts owe due deference to an administrator's factual conclusions that reflect a reasonable and impartial judgment. ⚠ not in text
191 citation events (32 in the last 25 years) across 34 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Dowden v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Texas, Inc. (ca5, 1997-09-22)
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Dowden v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Texas, Inc. (2×)
5th Cir. · 1997 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
federal courts owe due deference to an administrator's factual con 645 elusions that reflect a reasonable and impartial judgment.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Annie DOWDEN, also known as Annie J. Dowden v. BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF TEXAS, INC (2×)
unknown court · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
federal courts owe due deference to an administrator's factual conclusions that reflect a reasonable and impartial judgment.
discussed Cited "see" Powell v. State
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
Thus, “[t]he scope of the protection afforded by the Fourth Amendment is defined in terms of the individual’s ‘legitimate expectation of privacy.’ ” Stanberry v. State, 343 Md. 720, 731 , 684 A.2d 823 (1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1210 , 117 S.Ct. 1692 , 137 L.Ed.2d 819 (1997) (quoting Smith, 442 U.S. at 740 , 99 S.Ct. 2577 ); see Owens v. State, 322 Md. 616, 625 , 589 A.2d 59 , cert. denied, 502 U.S. 973 , 112 S.Ct. 452 , 116 L.Ed.2d 470 (1991).
discussed Cited "see" Glenn v. Life Insurance Co. of North America (2×)
W.D. Mo. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pierre v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., 932 F.2d 1552, 1562 (5th Cir.1991), cert denied, 502 U.S. 973 , 112 S.Ct. 453 , 116 L.Ed.2d 470 (1991).
discussed Cited "see" Pens. Plan Guide P 23918h Linda Ramsey v. Hercules Incorporated and Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company (2×)
7th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pierre v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., 932 F.2d 1552, 1561 (5th Cir.1991) (de novo review limited to denials based on plan interpretations), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 973 , 112 S.Ct. 453 , 116 L.Ed.2d 470 (1991).
discussed Cited "see" Dawes v. First Unum Life Insurance (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pierre v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 453 , 116 L.Ed.2d 470 (1991) (White, J., dissenting) (dissenting from denial of cer-tiorari and noting need to resolve dispute between Third and Fourth Circuits, employing de novo review, and Fifth Circuit, using abuse of discretion standard).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." William M. Shaw v. Connecticut General Life
11th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
Co., that absent any evidence of bad faith, we should always review a claims administrator’s factual determinations under the abuse of discretion standard. 7 932 *1285 F.2d 1552, 1562 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 973 , 112 S.Ct. 453 , 116 L.Ed.2d 470 (1991); see also Pierre, 502 U.S. at 974 , 112 S.Ct. 453 (White, J., dissenting from denial of cert.) (recognizing that “a disagreement has developed in the Courts of Appeals concerning the standard of review to be applied when a benefits decision turns on the facts of the case, rather than the interpretation of the terms in the ERIS…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Buckley v. Metropolitan Life (2×)
11th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Pierre v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., 932 F.2d 1552 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 973 , 112 S.Ct. 453 , 116 L.Ed.2d 470 (1991).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bernard Bolender, A/K/A Bernard Bolander v. Harry K. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
11th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Jackson v. Dugger, 931 F.2d 712, 716 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 452 , 116 L.Ed.2d 470 (1991); Aldridge v. Dugger, 925 F.2d 1320, 1328-29 (11th Cir.1991); Hargrave, 832 F.2d at 1534 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Pierre
v.
Connecticut General Life Insurance Co.
No. 91-485.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 18, 1991.
502 U.S. 973
Blackmun, White, Whom.
Cited by 100 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 88%
Citer courts: Fifth Circuit (2)

Lead Opinion

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Dissent

Justice White, with whom Justice Blackmun joins,

dissenting.

This lawsuit stems from a denial of accident insurance benefits by the administrator of an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) plan. See 88 Stat. 891, 29 U. S. C. § 1132 (a)(1)(B). In Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U. S. 101,[*974] 115 (1989), we reasoned that “the validity of a claim to benefits under an ERISA plan is likely to turn on the interpretation of terms in the plan” and therefore held that decisions of a plan administrator concerning eligibility for benefits ordinarily should be subject to de novo review.

Since our decision in Bruch, a disagreement has developed in the Courts of Appeals concerning the standard of review to be applied when a benefits decision turns on the facts of the case, rather than the interpretation of the terms in the ERISA plan. The Third and Fourth Circuits have held that a decision of a plan administrator should be reviewed de novo. Luby v. Teamsters Health, Welfare, and Pension Trust Funds, 944 F. 2d 1176 (CA3 1991); Reinking v. Philadelphia American Life Ins. Co., 910 F. 2d 1210 (CA4 1990). See also Petrilli v. Drechsel, 910 F. 2d 1441 (CA7 1990) (dicta). However, in the present case, the Fifth Circuit ruled that an abuse of discretion standard should be applied. 932 F. 2d 1552 (1991).

I would grant certiorari to resolve the conflict in the Courts of Appeals on this important issue.