Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al. v. Wanda Glenn
128 S. Ct. 2343 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an entity administers an ERISA plan and also pays for the benefits out of its own funds, a conflict of interest exists that a reviewing court must consider as one factor among many in determining whether the administrator abused its discretion in denying a claim.
Facts:
- Wanda Glenn, an employee of Sears, Roebuck & Co., was diagnosed with a severe heart condition, dilated cardiomyopathy.
- Sears' long-term disability plan was administered and insured by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife), which gave MetLife discretionary authority to determine eligibility and the obligation to pay approved claims from its own funds.
- In June 2000, Glenn applied for and received 24 months of disability benefits from MetLife, based on the plan's standard that she could not perform her own job.
- MetLife directed Glenn to apply for Social Security disability benefits, and after the Social Security Administration (SSA) found she could not perform any job, MetLife received three-quarters of the retroactive SSA payment as an offset.
- After the initial 24-month period, MetLife denied Glenn's request for extended benefits, concluding she was capable of performing full-time sedentary work, a finding contrary to the SSA's determination.
Procedural Posture:
- After exhausting her administrative remedies, Wanda Glenn filed a lawsuit against MetLife in the U.S. District Court, a court of first instance, to challenge the denial of her benefits.
- The District Court denied relief to Glenn, ruling in favor of MetLife.
- Glenn, as the appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's judgment, finding that MetLife abused its discretion and set aside the denial of benefits.
- MetLife, as the petitioner, successfully sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an ERISA plan administrator that both evaluates claims for benefits and pays those benefits claims operate under a conflict of interest that must be weighed as a factor in a court's abuse of discretion review of a benefits denial?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
Yes, a plan administrator that both evaluates claims and pays benefits operates under a conflict of interest that must be weighed as a factor when a court reviews a benefits denial for abuse of discretion. Guided by principles of trust law established in Firestone v. Bruch, the Court holds that this dual role creates a conflict because the administrator's fiduciary interest in granting claims clashes with its financial interest in denying them. This conflict does not change the standard of review from deferential to de novo, but rather must be considered as one factor in a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis. The significance of the conflict will vary based on the specific facts; it becomes more important if other circumstances suggest a higher likelihood of bias and less important if the administrator has taken active steps to reduce bias and promote accuracy, such as by walling off claims administrators from those interested in firm finances.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No, while a conflict of interest exists, it should not be weighed as a factor in a general reasonableness review but should only be relevant to determining if the decision was based on an improper motive. The majority's 'totality-of-the-circumstances' approach is an opaque, unpredictable standard that amounts to de novo review in disguise. Under trust law, a conflict of interest is relevant only to an inquiry into whether the trustee acted with an improper motive, such as self-dealing. A substantively reasonable decision is reasonable regardless of whether the decision-maker had a conflict; to hold otherwise would perversely punish a conflicted fiduciary for making a reasonable choice that also happens to be in its interest.
Concurring - Chief Justice Roberts
Yes, a conflict of interest exists, but it should only be considered on review if there is evidence that the conflict actually motivated or influenced the benefits denial. The majority's approach of weighing the conflict in every case will increase the level of scrutiny in most ERISA cases, undermining the deference that plans grant to administrators. A conflict should only become a factor when there is specific evidence of its influence, such as improper incentive schemes or a pattern of unreasonable denials. Nonetheless, the judgment should be affirmed because MetLife’s actions—ignoring the SSA finding and cherry-picking medical evidence—constituted an abuse of discretion on their own, regardless of the conflict.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Kennedy
Yes, the Court articulates the correct framework for analyzing the conflict of interest, but the case should be remanded for the Court of Appeals to apply this new framework. The majority correctly notes that the conflict's significance can diminish to a 'vanishing point' if an administrator has implemented structural safeguards to ensure accuracy. Because this standard is new, MetLife had no notice of its relevance and no opportunity to present evidence of such safeguards. Therefore, it is unfair to affirm the judgment without remanding the case to allow the lower court to reconsider the facts under the legal standard announced today.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the Firestone standard by requiring courts to always consider a structural conflict of interest as a factor in abuse-of-discretion review, but it adopts a flexible, case-by-case analytical approach rather than a rigid rule like burden-shifting. By treating the conflict as one of many factors, the Court makes the review process more holistic but also potentially less predictable for plan administrators and beneficiaries. The ruling's emphasis on mitigating factors, such as structural safeguards within a company, creates an incentive for administrators to implement and document procedures that ensure claims decisions are separated from financial considerations.
