Hall v. Metropolitan Life Ins., et al., No. 13-1332 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against MetLife, alleging that MetLife abused its discretion in denying her claim to receive the proceeds of her late husband's life insurance policy under an employee-benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to MetLife. The court concluded based on the evidence - the 1991 form, the husband's will, and the November 2010 form - that MetLife did not abuse its discretion in determining that the husband's son, rather than plaintiff, was the beneficiary of the life insurance proceeds. Even assuming that the substantial-compliance doctrine was available to federal courts in the interpleader context, the court would not extend it to the circumstances presented here. Where an ERISA plan administrator is given discretion under the plan to determine eligibility for benefits, the doctrine does not deprive the administrator from requiring strict compliance with the terms of the plan. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Civil case - ERISA. The plan administrator reasonably determined that Hall's decedent's will was inadequate to effect a change in beneficiary for the life insurance policy in question as the estate was not the beneficiary of the policy and the will did not address the distribution of non-estate assets; a completed, but never filed, change of beneficiary form was not sufficient to change beneficiaries under the provisions of the plan since it was not submitted within 30 days of signature; assuming for the sake of argument that the federal common law doctrine of substantial compliance remains available, the doctrine does not compel a different result, because where the ERISA plan administrator is given discretion under the plan to determine eligibility for benefits, the doctrine does not deprive the administrator from requiring strict compliance with the terms of the plan.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.