Loading AI tools
2013 United States Supreme Court case From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 571 U.S. 99 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case. In this case, the court considered whether the agreed-upon limitations period for filing a legal objection to long-term disability denial began when the claim was filed or the claim received a final denial.[1] In a unanimous decision, the court ruled the agreed-upon limitations period is neither too short nor is there a statute that prevents it from taking effect, as such the courts are bound to enforce the limitations period and its start date as written in the coverage plan.[2]
Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co. and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. | |
---|---|
Argued October 15, 2013 Decided December 16, 2013 | |
Full case name | Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co. and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. |
Docket no. | 12-729 |
Citations | 571 U.S. 99 (more) 134 S. Ct. 604; 187 L. Ed. 2d 529; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 9026; 82 U.S.L.W. 4035; 57 EBC 1265 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Case history | |
Prior | Case dismissed, No. 3:10-cv-1813 (D. Conn. Jan. 20, 2012); affirmed, 496 F. App'x 129 (2d Cir. Ct. 2012). |
Holding | |
Absent a controlling statute to the contrary, a participant in an employee benefit plan covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the plan may agree by contract to a particular limitations period, even one that starts to run before the cause of action accrues, as long as the period is reasonable. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | Thomas, joined by unanimous |
Laws applied | |
Employee Retirement Income Security Act |
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.