Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co.

Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co. and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 15, 2013 Decided December 16, 2013
Full case name	Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co. and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Docket nos.	12–729
Prior history	Case dismissed, US Dis. Ct.; District Court affirmed by 2nd Ckt. Ct.
Argument	Oral argument
Holding
Absent a controlling statute to the contrary, a participant in an employee benefit plan covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the plan may agree by contract to a particular limitations period, even one that starts to run before the cause of action accrues, as long as the period is reasonable.
Court membership
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
Majority	Thomas, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Kagan, Sotomayor, Alito, Ginsburg, Breyer
Laws applied
Employee Retirement Income Security Act

Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co. No. 12–729, 567 U.S. 310 (2013) is a United States Supreme Court case. In this case, the court considered whether the agreed-upon limitations period for filing a legal objection to long-term disability denial began when the claim was filed or the claim received a final denial.^[1] In a unanimous decision, the court ruled the agreed-upon limitations period is neither too short nor is there a statute that prevents it from taking effect, as such the courts are bound to enforce the limitations period and its start date as written in the coverage plan.^[2]

References

1. "HEIMESHOFF v. HARTFORD LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO. - LII / Legal Information Institute". Retrieved 2014-08-02.
2. "Supreme Court Decision in Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co., et al., in Alignment with DRI Amicus Brief". Retrieved 2014-08-02.