Recent Developments in Health Insurance, Life Insurance, and Disability Insurance Law.

This year's article covers key recent developments in life, health, and disability insurance law, including Supreme Court decisions on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's contraception coverage provisions and on the enforceability of legal actions limitations period provisions in Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plan documents; an alarming (but potentially short-lived) expansion of restitution as a form of "equitable relief" under ERISA; the latest battles in the stranger originated life insurance (STOLI) wars; and perennial issues arising out of disability and accident insurance cases.

Recent developments in health insurance, life insurance, and disability insurance case law.

This survey reviews significant state and federal court decisions from 2006 and 2007 involving health, life, and disability insurance. Also reviewed is a June 2008 Supreme Court decision in the disability insurance realm, affirming that a conflict of interest exists when an ERISA plan sponsor or insurer fulfills the dual role of determining plan benefits and paying those benefits but noting that the conflict is merely one factor in considering the legality of benefit denials. In addition, this years' survey includes compelling decisions in the life and health arena, including cases addressing statutory penalties and mandated benefits, as well as some ERISA decisions of note. This year, the Texas Supreme Court held that Texas's most recent version of the prompt payment statute abolished the common law interpleader exception and allowed the prevailing adverse claimant in an interpleader action filed beyond the sixty-day statutory period to recover statutory interest and attorney fees from the insurer. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals of New York upheld the constitutionality of a statute mandating coverage for contraceptives in those employer-sponsored health plans that offer prescription drug coverage, including those plans sponsored by faith-based social service organizations. In the ERISA context, litigants continue to fight over the standard of review with varying results. In a unique assault on the arbitrary and capricious standard of review, the Fourth Circuit found that an ERISA plan abused its discretion when it failed to apply the doctrine of contra proferentem to construe ambiguous plan terms against itself. In more hopeful news for plan insurers, the Tenth Circuit held that claimants are not entitled to review and rebut medical opinions generated during the administrative appeal of a claim denial before a final decision is reached unless such reports contain new factual information.