No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Defendant Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company prevailed on summary judgment in this ERISA long-term disability benefits denial case. The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff's motion, affirming the insurer's determination that plaintiff could perform occupations other than her regular occupation as a registered nurse.
Summary of Breen v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company
What Happened
Breen sought long-term disability benefits from her insurance company, Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, after she could no longer work as a registered nurse. She believed she should receive benefits because she couldn't perform her specific job. The insurance company denied her claim, arguing she could work in other occupations instead.
What the Court Decided
The court sided with the insurance company. The judge agreed that Breen could perform jobs other than nursing, so she didn't qualify for disability benefits under her policy. The court rejected her arguments and upheld the insurer's decision.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows how disability insurance companies define "disability." Rather than only looking at whether you can do your specific job, insurers may examine whether you can do *any* job for which you're reasonably qualified. If you're injured or become ill, you might not receive benefits even if your career field becomes unavailable. Workers should carefully review their disability insurance policies to understand exactly when benefits apply.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
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.