Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the scope of ERISA jurisdiction and preemption, not in deciding when a § 1132(a)(1)(B) claim accrues. White, and the district courts mentioned above, erred in relying on Stevens as authoritative in determining the proper accrual date of § 1132(a)(1)(B) claims for the statute of limitations. But see Watkins, 570 Fed. Appx. at 460 (citing Stevens for the general proposition that § 1132(a)(1)(B) claims accrue upon formal denial of benefits, but nonetheless applying the discovery rule of Moni-son). In Morrison, we addressed accrual for the purposes of the statute of limitations in § 1132(a)(1)(B) claims for the first time, and adopted the '‘discovery rule.” 439 F.3d at 302-03. There we held that a § 1132(a)(1)(B) claim accrues upon "clear and unequivocal repudiation” of benefits. Id. (<HOLDING>). We reiterated this rule in Redmon v. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding evidence including that insurer only charged life insurance premium that would ordinarily apply to onehalf the amount of coverage actually permitted by policy as written did not warrant retroactive reformation of policy to reduce coverage amount because it did not demonstrate mistake on insureds part and insurance company did not present evidence on what parties agreed to before the policy was issued (B) holding that the plaintiffs deceased husbands benefits claim had been clearly repudiated by the plan sending him a refund check for his first premium payment and an accompanying letter denying his application to convert his portable life insurance coverage to a group policy (C) holding that the appellant waived his claim on appeal because he failed to address that claim in either his application for a coa or his brief on appeal (D) holding that the insured covered by a group insurance policy purchased through his employer was not entitled to continue receiving coverage for the treatment of his daughters illness after he terminated his employment (E) holding widows claim that deceased husbands former employer and its life insurance carrier were negligent in their handling of husbands conversion of benefits was preempted by erisa finding the liability of the defendants is dependent upon the existence of the erisa plan and the interpretation of rights conferred by it
Output (English): holding evidence including that insurer only charged life insurance premium that would ordinarily apply to onehalf the amount of coverage actually permitted by policy as written did not warrant retroactive reformation of policy to reduce coverage amount because it did not demonstrate mistake on insureds part and insurance company did not present evidence on what parties agreed to before the policy was issued