Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

Courts consider COBRA claims involving insurer liability and whether improper notice extends election and continuation periods

Article Abstract:

The district courts in two federal cases ruled in favor of the employer regarding post-employment health insurance benefits under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA). In Allen v. Loyola University, the court ruled that no continuing contractual agreement existed between a former employee and the employer's insurer. In Disabatino v. Disabatino Brothers, Inc., the court levied a fine against the employer for failing to give notice that COBRA coverage would be terminated but did not find that coverage had to continue.

Publisher: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1995
Retirement benefits

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Statutory COBRA notice is insufficient notice for spouse of incompetent employee

Article Abstract:

The facts giving rise to Meadows v Cagle's Inc were that the spouse of an incompetent former employee declined to exercise her COBRA rights in a timely fashion and that the insurance company declined coverage. The judges held that giving the plaintiff just a COBRA notice was insufficient, and that only if he had been given the plan documents could he have made an informed decision on the employee's behalf.

Publisher: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1992

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Court holds that employer breached fiduciary duty by failing to provide a COBRA notice to a terminated employee

Article Abstract:

The US District Court of Southern New York in 1997's Carner v. MGS and its sister case held that the terminated plaintiff was not given adequate notice under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA). The court found that the defendants, which it treated as a single employer, breached their fiduciary duties by not following COBRA rules. Testimonial evidence supported the plaintiff.

Publisher: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1998
Laws, regulations and rules, Fiduciary duties

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: United States, Cases, Health insurance, Notice (Law)
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Antitrust enforcers step up scrutiny of MFN clauses; insurers and health care providers should understand the competitive effects of 'most favored nation' pricing
  • Abstracts: The continuing viability of the 1875 Supreme Court case of Totten v. United States. Procurement authorities of the CIA
  • Abstracts: Conservatory and provisional measures in international arbitration: AAA's experience. How to draft an AAA arbitration clause for international business
  • Abstracts: State Clean Air Act programs undefined. EPA clarifies lender liability standards. Sparks fly over Clean Air Act permits
  • Abstracts: Courts battle over Harris execution; an impatient Supreme Court orders an end to last-minute stays by 9th Circuit. part 2
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.