Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch
- Decided
- February 21, 1989
- Docket
- 87-1054
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 6,595 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that a denial of benefits challenged under ERISA section 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) (1988 — William E. Bradwell, Dale Adami v. Gaf Corporation (1992)
- holding that de novo review is appropriate unless a plan's terms specifically grant discretion to its administrators — Bard v. Boston Shipping Ass'n (2006)
- holding that generally, “a denial of benefits challenged under § 1132(a)(1)(B) [of ERISA] is to be reviewed ... de novo” — Brent Kamler v. H/n Telecommunication Services, Inc. (2002)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents two questions concerning the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. [*105] 829, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 1001 et seq. First, we address the appropriate standard of judicial review of benefit determinations by fiduciaries or plan administrators under ERISA. Second, we determine which persons are “participants” entitled to obtain information about benefit plans covered by ERISA.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (1989)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.