U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 18— EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY PROGRAM › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RIGHTS › Subtitle Subtitle B— Regulatory Provisions › Part part 6— continuation coverage and additional standards for group health plans

29 U.S.C. § 1163

Qualifying event

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
For purposes of this part, the term “qualifying event” means, with respect to any covered employee, any of the following events which, but for the continuation coverage required under this part, would result in the loss of coverage of a qualified beneficiary:(1) The death of the covered employee.(2) The termination (other than by reason of such employee’s gross misconduct), or reduction of hours, of the covered employee’s employment.(3) The divorce or legal separation of the covered employee from the employee’s spouse.(4) The covered employee becoming entitled to benefits under title XVIII of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.].(5) A dependent child ceasing to be a dependent child under the generally applicable requirements of the plan.(6) A proceeding in a case under title 11, commencing on or after July 1, 1986, with respect to the employer from whose employment the covered employee retired at any time.In the case of an event described in paragraph (6), a loss of coverage includes a substantial elimination of coverage with respect to a qualified beneficiary described in section 1167(3)(C) of this title within one year before or after the date of commencement of the proceeding.(Pub. L. 93–406, title I, § 603, as added Pub. L. 99–272, title X, § 10002(a), Apr. 7, 1986, 100 Stat. 229; amended Pub. L. 99–509, title IX, § 9501(a)(2), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 2076.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Social Security Act, referred to in par. (4), is act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620. Title XVIII of the Social Security Act is classified generally to subchapter XVIII (§ 1395 et seq.) of chapter 7 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 1305 of Title 42 and Tables.

Amendments

1986—Pub. L. 99–509 added par. (6) and last sentence.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1986 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–509 effective, except as otherwise provided, as if included in title X of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Pub. L. 99–272, see section 9501(e) of Pub. L. 99–509, set out as a note under section 162 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 184 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 47 F. Supp. 3d 665 (W.D. Tenn. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 47 F. Supp. 3d 665 (W.D. Tenn. 2014). · cites it 3× “See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1163 , 1166. Examples of qualifying events include an employee’s death, termination or reduction of hours, divorce or legal separation, and entitlement to Social Security benefits.”
Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd., 32 P.3d 52 (Haw. 2001). · cites it 2× “The list of events on the COBRA Qualifying Notice that Pacific sent to the insurance carrier is almost identical to that set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 1163 . 45 The COBRA Qualifying Notice stated that Plaintiffs health insurance coverage was ending due to “termination of employment,…”
Phillips v. Riverside, Inc., 796 F. Supp. 403 (E.D. Ark. 1992). · cites it 5× “29 U.S.C. § 1163 (2). In the event of termination of a covered employee, an employer must notify the administrator of the group health plan within thirty days of the termination.”
Terry McDowell Individually & in His Capacity as of the Last Will of Sharon Sidovar v. John Raymond Krawchison Winton Road Chiropractic Ctr., Inc., 125 F.3d 954 (6th Cir. 1997). · cites it 5× “§ 1162 (continuation coverage); 29 U.S.C. § 1163 (2) (termination of covered employee as qualifying event).”
Bryant v. Food Lion, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 346 (D.S.C. 2000). · cites it 6× “29 U.S.C. § 1163 (2). I find that plaintiffs Bryant and Bannister were terminated for refusal to comply with their supervisor’s instructions; that their refusals to comply constituted gross misconduct, and, therefore, they were not entitled to notice or continued coverage under…”
Florida Ex Rel. Attorney Gen. v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 648 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “" 29 U.S.C. § 1163 . [35] For dates effective as to children and then adults, see Pub.”
Rebecca Morehouse v. Steak N Shake, 938 F.3d 814 (6th Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “29 U.S.C. § 1163 , 1163(2). Mrs. Morehouse alleges that a qualifying event occurred when her hours were reduced following her May 26, 2013 injury.”
Conery v. Bath Assocs., 803 F. Supp. 1388 (N.D. Ind. 1992). · cites it 3× “See 29 U.S.C. § 1163 . Termination of employment for any reason other than gross misconduct is one of the qualifying events that entitles an employee to receive continuation coverage.”
Van Hoove v. Mid-Am. Bldg. Maint., Inc., 841 F. Supp. 1523 (D. Kan. 1993). · cites it 5× “29 U.S.C. § 1163 provides in relevant part as follows: For purposes of this part [ 29 U.”
Katie Mayes v. Winco Holdings, Inc., 846 F.3d 1274 (9th Cir. 2017). “See 29 U.S.C. § 1163 (2) (excluding termination for “gross misconduct” from list of qualifying events).”
Melody Edwardsen Phillips v. Saratoga Harness Racing, Inc., 240 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2001). · cites it 3× “29 U.S.C. § 1163 & (3). When a beneficiary’s coverage is being terminated upon the occurrence of a “qualifying event,” COBRA places notice obligations on both the employee and the employer.”
Zickafoose v. UB Servs., Inc., 23 F. Supp. 2d 652 (S.D.W. Va 1998). · cites it 4× “In their summary judgment motion, Defendants contend that Plaintiff was terminated for gross misconduct, see 29 U.S.C. § 1163 (2) (1992), and that Plaintiff failed to establish that Defendants’ employee handbook constitutes an employment contract as recognized by West Virginia…”
Show all 184 citing cases →
29 U.S.C. § 1163(2): 2 cases
Oreste Kidder & Thelma Kidder v. H & B Marine, Inc., 932 F.2d 347 (5th Cir. 1991).
Scott FALLO; Kasey Fallo, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PICCADILLY CAFETERIAS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, 141 F.3d 580 (5th Cir. 1998).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.