The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that any benefit denial letter sent by ERISA plan administrators must expressly state contractual time limits for bringing suit. The ruling in Mirza v. Insurance Administrator of America is in line with prior decisions by the First and Sixth Circuits.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that any benefit denial letter sent by ERISA plan administrators must expressly state contractual time limits for bringing suit. The ruling in Mirza v. Insurance Administrator of Americais in line with prior decisions by the First and Sixth Circuits.
The Legal Background
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) provides that a participant or beneficiary may bring a civil action “to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan.” upon their receipt of a denial letter. However, since ERISA does not set forth a specific statute of limitations, courts normally will apply the statute of limitations from the most analogous state-law claim, e.g. breach of contract. Of course, in normal contract circumstances, the parties are permitted to contractually agree to a shorter limitations period so long as it is not unreasonable.
The Department of Labor regulations implementing ERISA apply as they define fiduciary responsibility in the context of claim resolution such as when a plan administrator denies a request for benefits. In such case, the denial must set forth a “description of the plan’s review procedures and the time limits applicable to such procedures, including a statement of the claimant’s right to bring a civil action.” 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503–1(g)(1)(iv).
The Facts of the Case
The ERISA plan at issue stated that “no legal action may be commenced or maintained to recover benefits under the Plan more than 12 months after the final review/appeal decision by the Plan Administrator has been rendered.” In the world of health insurance, such shortened periods to resolve claims have become a common way of limiting benefits. Dr. Neville Mirza received his final denial letter on August 12, 2010, but did not file suit until March 8, 2012. The denial letter advised him of his right to judicial review, but it did not mention the short time limit for doing so. The district court dismissed the suit, finding that Mirza’s claim was time-barred.
The Court’s Decision
The Third Circuit held that plan administrators must affirmatively inform claimants of plan-imposed deadlines for judicial review in their benefit denial letter. Accordingly, it concluded that the defendants’ violated their fiduciary obligations by failing to include the plan-imposed one-year time limit in the letter denying Mirza’s request for benefits.
The Third Circuit noted that the two other federal courts of appeal considering the issue reached the same conclusion. In light of its decision, the court further held that the appropriate remedy was to set aside the plan’s contractual time limit and apply New Jersey’s six-year deadline for breach of contract.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Modified Statutes in Issuing a ERISA Benefit Denial Letter
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that any benefit denial letter sent by ERISA plan administrators must expressly state contractual time limits for bringing suit. The ruling in Mirza v. Insurance Administrator of America is in line with prior decisions by the First and Sixth Circuits.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that any benefit denial letter sent by ERISA plan administrators must expressly state contractual time limits for bringing suit. The ruling in Mirza v. Insurance Administrator of Americais in line with prior decisions by the First and Sixth Circuits.
The Legal Background
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) provides that a participant or beneficiary may bring a civil action “to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan.” upon their receipt of a denial letter. However, since ERISA does not set forth a specific statute of limitations, courts normally will apply the statute of limitations from the most analogous state-law claim, e.g. breach of contract. Of course, in normal contract circumstances, the parties are permitted to contractually agree to a shorter limitations period so long as it is not unreasonable.
The Department of Labor regulations implementing ERISA apply as they define fiduciary responsibility in the context of claim resolution such as when a plan administrator denies a request for benefits. In such case, the denial must set forth a “description of the plan’s review procedures and the time limits applicable to such procedures, including a statement of the claimant’s right to bring a civil action.” 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503–1(g)(1)(iv).
The Facts of the Case
The ERISA plan at issue stated that “no legal action may be commenced or maintained to recover benefits under the Plan more than 12 months after the final review/appeal decision by the Plan Administrator has been rendered.” In the world of health insurance, such shortened periods to resolve claims have become a common way of limiting benefits. Dr. Neville Mirza received his final denial letter on August 12, 2010, but did not file suit until March 8, 2012. The denial letter advised him of his right to judicial review, but it did not mention the short time limit for doing so. The district court dismissed the suit, finding that Mirza’s claim was time-barred.
The Court’s Decision
The Third Circuit held that plan administrators must affirmatively inform claimants of plan-imposed deadlines for judicial review in their benefit denial letter. Accordingly, it concluded that the defendants’ violated their fiduciary obligations by failing to include the plan-imposed one-year time limit in the letter denying Mirza’s request for benefits.
The Third Circuit noted that the two other federal courts of appeal considering the issue reached the same conclusion. In light of its decision, the court further held that the appropriate remedy was to set aside the plan’s contractual time limit and apply New Jersey’s six-year deadline for breach of contract.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
