On November 30, in Cigna Corp. v. Amara, the Court will hear argument regarding whether plaintiffs who seek to recover benefits under ERISA based on an inconsistency between the summary plan description for their pension plan and the plan itself must prove that they relied, to their detriment, on the plan description.  Jayne Zanglein, a professor at Western Carolina University, and Casey Schulte, a student at the university, preview the case for the American Bar Association's PREVIEW of U.S. Supreme Court Cases; the ABA has generously agreed to share some of its previews "“ which are authored by practitioners and scholars in the field "“ with SCOTUSblog.  You can read the preview here; PREVIEW's website is here.

Posted in CIGNA v. Amara, Featured, Merits Cases

Recommended Citation: Anna Christensen, Argument preview: Does proof of likely harm justify relief under ERISA?, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 24, 2010, 10:33 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/11/argument-preview-does-proof-of-likely-harm-justify-relief-under-erisa/