Skip to main content

Weiss v. Union Central Life Insurance

2nd CircuitMay 9, 2003No. Docket No. 02-7952Cited 1 time
Plaintiff WinUnion Central Life Insurance$42,568.04 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Katzmann, Parker, Raggi
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The Second Circuit vacated and remanded the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion to amend judgment, finding that the district court may not have been fully apprised of critical circumstances when it eliminated a premium refund award that had been included in the final December 2000 judgment and affirmed on appeal.

What This Ruling Means

**Weiss v. Union Central Life Insurance: Worker Wins Insurance Benefits Case** This case involved a dispute between an employee and Union Central Life Insurance over insurance benefits. The worker, Weiss, had a contract dispute with the insurance company regarding benefits they believed they were owed. The case went through multiple court proceedings, including an initial judgment in December 2000 that awarded the worker a premium refund. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the worker, awarding $42,568.04 in damages. The appeals court found that a lower court had improperly removed a premium refund from the worker's award without fully understanding all the important facts of the case. The court sent the case back to the lower court to reconsider this decision. **What this means for workers:** This ruling shows that courts will protect workers' contractual rights to insurance benefits and premium refunds when companies try to deny them. If you have a legitimate contract dispute with your employer or insurance provider, courts may reverse decisions that unfairly reduce your awarded benefits. Workers should know that appellate courts will review cases to ensure all relevant facts were properly considered before benefits are denied or reduced.

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

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.