Fortune v. Group Long Term Disability Plan for Employees of Keyspan Corp.

E.D.N.Y.November 29, 2008No. 2:08-cv-01017Cited 3 times

Defendant WinKeyspan Corporation

Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s): Spatt
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling: Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached: motion to dismiss
State: New York
Circuit: Second Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint, finding that the disability plan's offset provision permitting Hartford to reduce benefits by SSDI payments received by the beneficiary's dependent children was clear and enforceable as a matter of law.

What This Ruling Means

# Fortune v. Group Long Term Disability Plan for Employees of Keyspan Corp. ## What Happened Fortune filed a lawsuit against Keyspan Corporation's disability insurance plan, managed by Hartford. She claimed the plan unfairly reduced her disability benefits by subtracting Social Security payments her dependent children received. She wanted to challenge this rule and asked the court to allow her to revise her complaint. ## What the Court Decided The court sided with the insurance company. The judge ruled that the plan's language clearly allowed Hartford to reduce Fortune's benefits by the amount her children received in Social Security benefits. Because the plan's terms were clear and legally valid, the court refused to let Fortune proceed with her case. ## Why This Matters for Workers This ruling shows that disability plans can legally reduce payments based on other income sources, including family members' benefits. Workers receiving disability benefits should carefully review their plan documents to understand what offsets apply. If benefits get reduced, insurance companies can point to these offset provisions as legal justification.

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

Browse more:Breach of Contract cases

Similar Rulings

James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab

9th CircuitNov 2000

Mixed Result

Umland v. PLANCO Financial Services, Inc.

Read Full Opinion More Keyspan Corporation Rulings All Rulings

Browse Related

More rulings from New York

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

Check My Rights Learn the Basics

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.