Employee Benefits Law - Drunk Driving Fatality Determined Not Accidental under ERISA-Governed Insurance Plan - Stamp V. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co

By Dolan, Jeffrey E. | Suffolk University Law Review, Fall 2009 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Employee Benefits Law - Drunk Driving Fatality Determined Not Accidental under ERISA-Governed Insurance Plan - Stamp V. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co


Dolan, Jeffrey E., Suffolk University Law Review


Employee Benefits Law--Drunk Driving Fatality Determined Not Accidental Under ERISA-Governed Insurance Plan--Stamp v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 531 F.3d 84 (1st Cir. 2008)

Federal common law governs claims arising out of employee benefit plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). (1) The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit created an approach for interpreting the ambiguous word "accident" in ERISA-governed plans in Wickman v. Northwestern National Insurance Co. (2) In Stamp v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (3), the First Circuit used the Wickman framework to address, for the first time, whether the administrator of an ERISA-governed plan could reasonably conclude that the death of an insured party who was killed in a single-car accident when driving drunk was not accidental for purposes of his life insurance policies. (4) The First Circuit reviewed the administrator's decision under an arbitrary and capricious standard and upheld the decision as both reasonable and supported by the evidence on the record. (5)

In the early morning of August 3, 2002, Steven Stamp was killed in a single-car accident when his car went off the road and crashed into a tree in Johnston, Rhode Island. (6) Mr. Stamp's blood alcohol content (BAC) at the time of his death was .265 percent, more than three times Rhode Island's legal limit of .08 percent. (7) Stamp's wife, Karen Stamp, submitted a claim for benefits as the beneficiary of Mr. Stamp's life insurance policies to the claim fiduciary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Metlife). (8) Metlife paid the claim for Basic Life Insurance benefits, but denied Mrs. Stamp's claims under the Basic and Voluntary Accidental Death and Dismemberment (AD & D) policies. (9) Mrs. Stamp submitted an appeal to Mr. Stamp's employer and administrator of the plan, Exxon Mobil Chemical Company (Mobil). (10) Mobil denied the appeal of the Basic and Voluntary AD & D benefits after concluding that Mr. Stamp's death was not the result of an "accident" as defined in his AD & D policies. (11)

After Mobil denied her appeal, Mrs. Stamp filed suit in district court, and the suit was treated as an enforcement action under ERISA. (12) The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Metlife and Mobil after affirming the reasonableness of the determination that Mr. Stamp's death was not the result of an accident. (13) Mrs. Stamp then appealed to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, asserting that Mobil unreasonably determined that her husband's death was not accidental. (14) Upon reviewing the federal common law pertaining to ERISA, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision and upheld Mobil's determination that Mr. Stamp's death was not an accident. (15)

Congress enacted ERISA in 1974 to protect the rights of employees and their beneficiaries and to provide access to federal courts when these rights are violated. (16) A participant or beneficiary of a plan covered by ERISA may bring a civil action "to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan." (17) ERISA claims are federal questions and preempt any state-law claims relating to employee benefit plans. (18) Accordingly, federal common law controls claims regarding ERISA-governed plans. (19)

In the landmark case of Wickman v. Northwestern National Insurance Company, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit established a procedure for interpreting the ambiguous word "accident" in ERISA-regulated plans. (20) The Wickman test uses the expectations of the insured at the time the policy was purchased as a starting point for determining whether an injury was accidental. (21) If the fact-finder determines that the insured party did not have a subjective expectation of sustaining a similar injury, the fact-finder must then determine whether it was reasonable for the insured party to not have this expectation.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Employee Benefits Law - Drunk Driving Fatality Determined Not Accidental under ERISA-Governed Insurance Plan - Stamp V. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?