Pearce v. Carrier Corp., 966 F.2d 958 (5th Cir. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
Pearce v. Carrier Corp., 966 F.2d 958 (5th Cir. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2006 · …is limited to recovery of those expenses actually incurred by either replacement of the lost insurance or occurrence of the insured risk. at p. 959 ✓
12 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Fresquez v. BNSF Railway Co. (cod, 2019-11-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fresquez v. BNSF Railway Co.
D. Colo. · 2019 · confidence medium
Kossman v. Calumet Cnty., 800 F.2d 697, 703 (7th Cir. 1986), overruled on other grounds by Coston v. Plitt Theatres, Inc., 860 F.2d 834 (7th Cir. 1988); Galindo v. Stoody Co., 793 F.2d 1502 , 1517–18 (9th Cir. 1986); Pearce v. Carrier Corp., 966 F.2d 958, 959 (5th Cir. 1992) (per curium) (agreeing with the Seventh and Ninth Circuits).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) King v. CVS Caremark Corp.
N.D. Ala. · 2016 · confidence medium
However, as the Fifth Circuit has explained (and which precedent this court is persuaded to follow), the scope of an employee’s recovery for insurance benefits “is limited to recovery of those expenses actually incurred by either replacement of the lost insurance or occurrence of the insured risk.” Lubke v. City of Arlington, 455 F.3d 489, 499 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added) (quoting Pearce v. Carrier Corp., 966 F.2d 958, 959 (5th Cir.1992)); 38 cf. Kossman v. Calumet County, 800 F.2d 697, 704 (7th Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Coston v. Plit…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lubke v. City of Arlington
5th Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
In ADEA cases, an employee "is limited to recovery of those expenses actually incurred by either replacement of the lost insurance or occurrence of the insured risk." Pearce v. Carrier Corp., 966 F.2d 958, 959 (5th Cir.1992); see also Brunnemann v. Terra Int'l, Inc., 975 F.2d 175, 179 (5th Cir.1992).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lubke v. City of Arlington
5th Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
In ADEA cases, an employee “is limited to recovery of those expenses actually incurred by either replacement of the lost insurance or occurrence of the insured risk.” Pearce v. Carrier Corp., 966 F.2d 958, 959 (5th Cir.1992); see also Brunnemann v. Terra Int’l, Inc., 975 F.2d 175, 179 (5th Cir.1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) R. Nelson Brunnemann, Cross-Appellant v. Terra International, Inc., Cross-Appellee
5th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Pearce, 966 F.2d at 959.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Brunnemann v. Terra Intern., Inc.
5th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Pearce, 966 F.2d at 959.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Erie County Retirees Ass'n v. County of Erie, Pa.
W.D. Pa. · 2001 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., *312 Pearce v. Carrier Corp., 966 F.2d 958 (5th Cir.1992); Kossman v. Calumet County, 800 F.2d 697 (7th Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Coston v. Plitt Theatres, Inc. 860 F.2d 834 (7th Cir.1988); Merkel v. Scovill, Inc., 570 F.Supp. 141, 146 (S.D.Ohio 1983).; Curtis v. Robern, Inc., 819 F.Supp. 451, 459 (E.D.Pa.1993).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
59 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 575, 59 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,670, 15 Employee Benefits Cas. 2514 Tom Pearce, Cross-Appellant
v.
Carrier Corporation, Cross-Appellee
91-8531.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jul 10, 1992.
966 F.2d 958
1992 WL 157752
Published

966 F.2d 958

59 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 575,
59 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,670,
15 Employee Benefits Cas. 2514
Tom PEARCE, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant,
v.
CARRIER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee.

No. 91-8531.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

July 10, 1992.

Peter F. Healey, Jr., Cherie B. Artz, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Washington, D.C., Shelton E. Padgett, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, San Antonio, Tex., for Carrier Corp.

Hubert L. Gill, Schaubhut & Gill, Austin, Tex., for Tom Pearce.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, SMITH and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[*~958–959]1

This matter is before the court on the appeal of Carrier Corporation of post-trial motions following an adverse judgment on jury verdict in an Age Discrimination in Employment Act case, together with the cross-appeal by Tom Pearce of an adverse summary judgment on claims for pension benefits and severance pay and adverse rulings on reinstatement or alternatively for front pay.

2

We are presented with an issue of first impression regarding whether an ADEA claimant must prove actual loss to recover damages for health insurance benefits or, in the alternative, whether the claimant automatically recoups the value of the insurance fringe benefit regardless of whether he has purchased substitute coverage or incurred out-of-pocket medical expenses. There is a split in the circuits. We agree with our colleagues in the Seventh and Ninth Circuits and now hold that an ADEA claimant is limited to recovery of those expenses actually incurred by either replacement of the lost insurance or occurrence of the insured risk.[1]

3

Finding no merit in any other issue raised, the appealed judgments and rulings of the trial court are AFFIRMED.

1

See Kossman v. Calumet County, 800 F.2d 697 (7th Cir.1986) and Galindo v. Stoody Co., 793 F.2d 1502 (9th Cir.1986) (plaintiff must prove purchase of alternative coverage or expenses incurred in lieu thereof); but see Fariss v. Lynchburg Foundry, 769 F.2d 958 (4th Cir.1985); Blackwell v. Sun Electric Corp., 696 F.2d 1176 (6th Cir.1983) (not requiring actual damages proof)