Skip to main content

Rappaport v. Guardian Life Insurance Company of America

S.D.N.Y.April 21, 2025No. 1:22-cv-08100
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
Labor: E.R.I.S.A.
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The court determined that the term 'insured earnings' in the long-term disability plan includes the plaintiff's K-1 partnership earnings from ICC Mortgage Services, and that Guardian Life Insurance Company improperly terminated his disability benefits by excluding those earnings from its calculation. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Count I.

What This Ruling Means

Rappaport v. Guardian Life Insurance Company: Court Ruling Explained

What Happened

Rappaport received long-term disability benefits from Guardian Life Insurance Company but the company stopped paying him. Guardian claimed his disability payments should not include earnings he made as a partner in a mortgage company (shown on his K-1 tax form). Rappaport disagreed, arguing those partnership earnings should count toward his total insured earnings used to calculate his benefits.

What the Court Decided

The court sided with Rappaport. The judge ruled that "insured earnings" in his disability plan *does* include partnership earnings from his K-1 form. Guardian Life improperly excluded this income when calculating and then terminating his benefits. The court fully supported Rappaport's position.

Why This Matters for Workers

This ruling protects self-employed people and business partners who receive disability insurance. Insurance companies cannot arbitrarily exclude certain types of legitimate business income when determining benefit payments. If your disability plan doesn't clearly exclude partnership earnings, companies must count them—meaning you should receive the full benefits you're entitled to under your plan.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

More Rulings in This Case

Other orders and opinions in Rappaport from the same court.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.