Hartman v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company
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
- default judgment
- State
- Missouri
- Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
Plaintiff won default judgment against Patriot National for breach of ERISA fiduciary duties, recovering $100,000 in life insurance benefits plus $10,400 in attorney's fees and costs, totaling $110,400.
What This Ruling Means
Hartman v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company
What Happened
Hartman filed a lawsuit against Patriot National, Inc., claiming the company violated its duties as manager of an employee life insurance plan. Specifically, Hartman argued that Patriot National improperly handled life insurance benefits that were supposed to be paid out under the company's employee plan.
What the Court Decided
The court ruled in Hartman's favor. Patriot National was ordered to pay $110,400 total: $100,000 in life insurance benefits that Hartman was entitled to receive, plus $10,400 to cover Hartman's attorney's fees and court costs.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that companies have legal responsibilities when managing employee benefits like life insurance. If a company fails to properly pay out benefits that workers are entitled to, courts can hold them accountable. The decision also means workers who win these disputes can recover not just their benefits, but also the cost of hiring a lawyer to fight for them—making it more possible for employees to afford legal representation in benefit disputes.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
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.