Franklin Williams Insurance Trust v. Travelers Insurance Company’s Empirical Analysis
50 F.3d 144 · 1995
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Greenblatt v. Delta Plumbing & Heating Corp. (1995), Corporate Health Insurance Inc v. The Texas Department of Insurance - Jose Montemayor John Cornyn - - (2000)
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1012 (§ 2 of the McCarran-Ferguson Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor · Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“has a connection with or reference to such a plan”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Unlike statutes that provide general remedies for unfair practice, fraud, and breach of contract, [the New York law] concerns the amount of the payment to which an insured is entitled. We believe that this provision is far more similar to the statute addressed in Metropolitan Life, and is precisely the type of statute that Congress intended to save from ERISA preemption. See Metropolitan Life, 471 U.S. at 744 , 105 S.Ct. at 2391 (finding no “contrary case authority suggesting that laws regulating the terms of insurance contracts should not be understood as laws that regulate insurance”); cf. American Progressive Life and Health Ins. Co. v. Corcoran, 715 F.2d 784, 786 (2d Cir.1983) (state regulation setting maximum commission that life insurance salesmen may earn saved from preemption).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is not clear, however, that [the New York Law] satisfies all three of the McCarran-Ferguson standards. The date that interest accrues impacts to some degree upon a transfer of risk from the insured to the insurer, see United States Dep’t of Treasury v. Fabe, 508 U.S. 491, 503-03 , 113 S.Ct. 2202, 2209 , 124 L.Ed.2d 449 (1993), by varying the amount paid to the insured upon the occurrence of the insured event or condition. The date chosen for the accrual of interest affects the policy relationship between the insurer and the insured, but it is arguable whether this choice is an ‘integral part’ of that relationship. On the other hand, both [the New York law] and the practice that it regulates are ‘limited to entities within the insurance industry.’ ””
1 later decision 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.