In Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co.,1 the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically altered the landscape for benefits litigation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), changing the rules governing fee-shifting under the statute by adopting a less stringent and more amorphous standard for claimants to meet.
Prior to Hardt, the circuit courts had fashioned a five-factor test for the award of fees that required a district court to consider (1) the culpability or bad faith of the opposing party; (2) the ability of the opposing party to pay an award; (3) the deterrent effect on other similarly situated persons; (4) the benefit that a successful suit confers on plan participants or beneficiaries generally or the significance of the legal issue; and (5) the relative merit of the parties’ positions.2
This content has been archived.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]
