Opinion ID: 1359690
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The ERISA Action

Text: On August 18, 2005, Hobson responded to Metlife's denial of her administrative appeals by instituting this action. Her complaint alleges that MetLife was influenced by its conflict of interest as both the evaluator and payor of benefit claims, warranting de novo review, and that, in any event, it abused its discretion in denying her claim for LTD benefits. The parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On December 12, 2006, the district court granted MetLife's motion and denied Hobson's, concluding that MetLife did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in denying Hobson's claim for benefits, because, inter alia, MetLife reasonably took up each and every aspect of the claim.... Hobson, No. 05 CV 7321, Tr. at 28. This appeal followed.