2009•Utah law reviewOpen access

Divided Loyalties: How the Metlife v. Glenn Standard Discounts ERISA Fiduciaries’ Conflicts of Interest

Beverly Cohen

Open full text 1 citations

Abstract

Professor Langbein, a noted ERISA scholar, has argued convincingly in favor of applying de novo review to ERISA benefit denials where the fiduciary acted under a conflict of interest. While the Supreme Court in MetLife rejected the de novo standard in favor of retaining Firestone’s arbitrary and capricious standard coupled with weighing the conflict as a factor, application of the MetLife standard yields a result that is so close to de novo review as to be virtually indistinguishable. By allowing the reviewing court to assign a discretionary weight to the conflict, it is uncertain how much, if any, deference will be given to the fiduciary’s decision. This discretionary weighing of the conflict thereby allows the reviewing court to overturn any fiduciary decision on the stated basis that the conflict warrants greater weight in the review.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Professor Langbein, a noted ERISA scholar, has argued convincingly in favor of applying de novo review to ERISA benefit denials where the fiduciary acted under a conflict of interest. While the Supreme Court in MetLife rejected the de novo standard in favor of retaining Firestone’s arbitrary and capricious standard coupled with weighing the conflict as a factor, application of the MetLife standard yields a result that is so close to de novo review as to be virtually indistinguishable. By allowing the reviewing court to assign a discretionary weight to the conflict, it is uncertain how much, if any, deference will be given to the fiduciary’s decision. This discretionary weighing of the conflict thereby allows the reviewing court to overturn any fiduciary decision on the stated basis that the conflict warrants greater weight in the review.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Professor Langbein, a noted ERISA scholar, has argued convincingly in favor of applying de novo review to ERISA benefit denials where the fiduciary acted under a conflict of interest. While the Supreme Court in MetLife rejected the de novo standard in favor of retaining Firestone’s arbitrary and capricious standard coupled with weighing the conflict as a factor, application of the MetLife standard yields a result that is so close to de novo review as to be virtually indistinguishable. By allowing the reviewing court to assign a discretionary weight to the conflict, it is uncertain how much, if any, deference will be given to the fiduciary’s decision. This discretionary weighing of the conflict thereby allows the reviewing court to overturn any fiduciary decision on the stated basis that the conflict warrants greater weight in the review.

Key concepts: Fiduciary, Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Standard of review, Denial, Plaintiff, Supreme court, Discretion, Business

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Divided Loyalties: How the Metlife v. Glenn Standard Discounts ERISA Fiduciaries’ Conflicts of Interest — Research Paper | ScholarLens