You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

In Re Unisys. Long-Term Disability Plan Erisa Litigation, John B.G. Roberts, Iii, Patty Guerrant, Estate of Jackson Guerrant, Richard Stark, Margaret Roeller, Estate of Eugene Roeller, Certified Class Representative, John B.G. Roberts, Iii, Frances McFeely Estate of John McFeely v. Unisys Long-Term Disability Plan, Unisys Corp., Travelers Ins. Co., Honorable Richard L. Buckwalter, Judge of U.S. District Court of Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Citations: 70 F.3d 1257; 1995 WL 698707Docket: 95-1309

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; October 29, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves a class action lawsuit against Unisys Long-Term Disability Plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The plaintiffs, including John B.G. Roberts, III, and others, sought to challenge the administration of the Long-Term Disability Plan, claiming improper denial of benefits and lack of due process. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case after an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court ultimately denied the mandamus petition, indicating that the appellants did not meet the necessary legal standards for such relief. The decision emphasizes the complexities surrounding ERISA litigation, particularly regarding the standards for benefit denials and the administration of employee benefit plans. The ruling reinforces the authority of the District Court's previous decisions and highlights the procedural hurdles faced by plaintiffs in class action suits under ERISA.

Legal Issues Addressed

Authority of District Court Decisions

Application: The appellate court reinforced the District Court's authority in its previous decisions, upholding the denial of the mandamus petition.

Reasoning: The ruling reinforces the authority of the District Court's previous decisions and highlights the procedural hurdles faced by plaintiffs in class action suits under ERISA.

ERISA Litigation Standards

Application: The court reviewed the case under the standards set forth for ERISA litigation, focusing on the complexities of benefit denials and the administration of employee benefit plans.

Reasoning: The decision emphasizes the complexities surrounding ERISA litigation, particularly regarding the standards for benefit denials and the administration of employee benefit plans.

Mandamus Petition Requirements

Application: The appellants failed to meet the necessary legal standards for a mandamus petition, leading to its denial by the court.

Reasoning: The court ultimately denied the mandamus petition, indicating that the appellants did not meet the necessary legal standards for such relief.

Procedural Challenges in ERISA Class Actions

Application: Plaintiffs in ERISA class action suits encounter significant procedural challenges, as highlighted by the court's ruling.

Reasoning: The ruling reinforces the authority of the District Court's previous decisions and highlights the procedural hurdles faced by plaintiffs in class action suits under ERISA.