New England Mutual Life Insurance v. Baig’s Empirical Analysis
166 F.3d 1 · 1999
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 12 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably Joseph O'Connor Peter Horning v. Commonwealth Gas Company John Williams Commonwealth Energy System and William Poist Joseph O'Connor Peter Horning (2001), Postma v. Paul Revere Life Insurance (2000)
6 federal appellate · 12 district · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne · District of Columbia v. Greater Washington Board of Trade · Donovan v. Dillingham · Wickman v. Northwestern National Insurance · Kanne v. Connecticut General Life Insurance
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any plan, fund, or program which was . . . established or maintained by an employer . . . for the purpose of providing for its participants or their beneficiaries, through the purchase of insurance or otherwise . . . benefits in the event of sickness, accident, disability, death or unemployment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“New England Mutual argues that an employer’s reimbursement of premiums paid directly by an employee should constitute substantial evidence of the exis tence of an ERISA plan. The policy at issue here was not initially established by a contractual arrangement between Cardiology Associates and New England Mutual; rather, Baig made the initial purchase directly. Baig paid the premiums directly to New England Mutual. The policy was an individual policy covering only Baig himself. Under these particular circumstances, the reimbursement by his employer of premiums paid directly by Baig did not create a plan under ERISA.... When an employer deals directly with the insurer and actually purchases an insurance policy for an employee, there may be sufficient participation to meet the ‘established or maintained’ requirement under ERISA. On the other hand, an employer who simply pays its employees enough so that the employees are encouraged on their own to buy insurance policies could not be thought to have established or maintained any policy that any individual employee might purchase.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A mere purchase of insurance by an employer is not sufficient to establish a plan under ERISA. Where insurance has been purchased by an employer, the crucial factor in determining if a ‘plan’ has been established is whether the purchase of the insurance policy constituted an expressed intention by the employer to provide benefits on a regular or long term basis. Similarly, whether a reasonable employee would perceive an ongoing commitment by the employer to provide employee benefits is an important consideration.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.