Skip to main content

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

E.D.N.Y.July 25, 2009No. 1:08-mj-01017Cited 13 times
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
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court found Hartford improperly denied Fortune's disability benefits under ERISA's arbitrary and capricious standard, vacating the denial decision. However, Hartford prevailed on its counterclaim for recovery of overpayment attributable to retroactive Social Security benefits.

What This Ruling Means

**Fortune v. Group Long Term Disability Plan - What Workers Need to Know** This case involved an employee named Fortune who was denied long-term disability benefits by Hartford, the insurance company managing Keyspan Corporation's employee disability plan. Fortune had been receiving disability payments but Hartford later decided to cut off the benefits, claiming Fortune was no longer disabled. The court ruled in Fortune's favor on the main issue, finding that Hartford had improperly denied the disability benefits. The judge determined that Hartford's decision was "arbitrary and capricious," meaning the insurance company didn't have good enough reasons to stop the payments. As a result, the court overturned Hartford's denial and ordered the benefits to be reinstated. However, Hartford did win on one smaller issue - they were allowed to recover money they had overpaid Fortune when he later received retroactive Social Security disability benefits. **What this means for workers:** This case shows that employees can successfully challenge disability benefit denials in court when insurance companies make unfair decisions. However, workers should be aware that if they receive disability benefits from multiple sources, they may need to pay back overpayments to avoid double-compensation for the same period.

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

Similar Rulings

Fortune
2nd CircuitAug 2010
Defendant Win
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result

Browse Related

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.

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.