A three-word phrase commonly used in insurance policies — “satisfactory to us” — has sharply divided the federal appellate courts, with six of the circuits concluding that the phrase triggers only discretionary review by the courts.
Now the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with the minority view adopted by three of its sister circuits, holding that the phrase is ambiguous and that, under ERISA, the standard of review in court should therefore be de novo.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
