In this ERISA case, Virgilia Givens was injured in an accident, and the Wal-Mart Associates' Health and Welfare Plan paid her medical bills totaling $91,312.18. After she settled with the tortfeasor's insurer for $100,000, the plan sought reimbursement pursuant to its subrogation and reimbursement provisions, which allow recovery from any settlement regardless of whether the participant is made whole. The court granted the plan's motion for summary judgment, holding that the plan's clear terms entitled it to reimbursement and imposing a constructive trust on the settlement proceeds.
The case concerned whether Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company qualified for a special 31.6% tax rate under transitional provisions in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 on capital gains from pre-1984 market discount bonds, or whether the standard 34% corporate rate applied. The court held that gains from Category A securities (called early by the issuer under explicit call provisions) qualified for the lower rate as redemptions at maturity, while gains from Category B securities (partial serial prepayments of principal) did not and remained taxable at 34%. The core reasoning was that the statutory term "redemption at maturity" encompassed issuer calls that accelerated the maturity date but excluded partial prepayments that neither occurred at full maturity nor retired the entire bond.
This case involved Virgilia Givens, who received medical benefits from the Wal-Mart Associates' Health and Welfare Plan (an ERISA self-funded plan) after a 2000 accident, followed by a $100,000 settlement with the tortfeasor's insurer. The Plan's Administrative Committee filed a counterclaim seeking equitable relief under ERISA § 502(a)(3) to enforce subrogation and reimbursement rights against the settlement proceeds, which the Givens had deposited with the court. The court denied the Plan's motion for summary judgment, reasoning that factual disputes existed over the amount of medical bills paid by the Plan and the impact of a separate lien by Syndicated Office Systems, making judgment premature under the standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and the limits on equitable relief established in Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson.
This case involved a dispute between James Menking and the Wal-Mart Associates Health and Welfare Plan over entitlement to $25,000 in underinsured motorist insurance proceeds after the Plan paid Menking's medical expenses from a 1997 car accident. The Plan, governed by ERISA, asserted subrogation rights under the plan terms and filed suit in federal court under ERISA section 502(a)(3) seeking the funds; Mid-Century Insurance had initiated an interpleader action that was removed to federal court. The court consolidated the two related cases, denied Menking's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, and granted the Plan's motion for summary judgment. The reasoning was that ERISA completely preempts any state-law claims regarding subrogation and authorizes the Plan's fiduciary to obtain appropriate equitable relief to enforce the plan's terms.
The case concerned whether Paige Ann Sweeney's student loans could be discharged in bankruptcy on the grounds of undue hardship under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling discharging the loans, holding that the bankruptcy court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous. The court applied the totality of the circumstances test from Andrews and Andresen, which requires considering the debtor's financial resources, necessary living expenses, and unique circumstances, including the spouse's income, and determined that the debtor's obligation to support her children outweighed repayment of the over $45,000 in loans given the family's limited income.
This case involved a proposed class action by over 67,000 property owners and tenants against ASARCO, alleging that the company's long-term operations released airborne contaminants onto their land, causing damage. The plaintiffs sought recovery of response costs under CERCLA section 107(a), a declaratory judgment for future costs, and state-law claims for trespass, nuisance, negligence, strict liability, unjust enrichment, and medical monitoring. The court granted ASARCO's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after a factual attack, finding that the plaintiffs had not alleged or incurred necessary response costs consistent with the National Contingency Plan to support federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and that individual claims failed to meet the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because remediation costs per property were below the threshold and medical monitoring expenses did not qualify. The court also declined to recognize a novel Nebraska-law claim for a medical-monitoring fund as a basis for jurisdiction.
