T. et al v. Aetna Insurance Company et al
| Harvey T., Jane R. and William T. |
| Aetna Insurance Company and Invesco Life Cycle Flex Plan |
| 2:2018cv00351 |
| April 27, 2018 |
| US District Court for the District of Utah |
| Central Office |
| Salt Lake |
| Dee Benson |
| Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 1001 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
50
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER-denying 39 Motion for Summary Judgment ; granting in part and denying in part 40 Motion for Summary Judgment ; Motions terminated: 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support filed by William T., Jane R., Harvey T., 39 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support filed by Aetna Insurance Company, Invesco Life Cycle Flex Plan. The court DENIES Plaintiffs request for an order awarding ben efits under the Plan;The court DENIES Plaintiffs' request for prejudgment interest; and The court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion as to find Aetna's benefits determinations arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiffs' request for attorney fees and costs is DENIED.Defendants' decisions denying Plaintiffs benefits for services at Daniels Academy are VACATED and this matter are remanded back to Aetna for further proceedings consistent with this decision. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge David Barlow on 12/15/20. (jrj)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Utah District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
