LexisNexis has once again raised the bar for legal practitioners with a robust suite of new resources and tools in its Practical Guidance platform. The June 2025 updates span multiple practice areas, delivering...
Public Law No. 119-21, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), represents the most comprehensive overhaul of the federal tax system since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA). Enacted on July 4, 2025...
Restaurant leasing presents a unique blend of legal considerations, shaped by operational realities such as equipment needs, utility demands, and customer-facing enhancements. Review this checklist for...
In today’s deal-making space, environmental liabilities can be hidden landmines threatening post-closing value and operational integrity. Navigate the intricate terrain of M&A transactions where...
This practice note helps attorneys representing drug and medical device manufacturers advise their clients about liability risks associated with their products, by summarizing the legal landscape surrounding...
* The views expressed in externally authored materials linked or published on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of LexisNexis Legal & Professional.
It’s been more than 30 years since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, which significantly impacted ERISA benefits litigation by applying a standard of review for courts faced with review of an ERISA benefits claim determination. Before Firestone, in most instances, courts reviewing benefit determinations would apply a de novo review standard. This means that an adverse claim is reviewed by a court without being predisposed to either side. The Firestone court held that the abuse of discretion standard (also referred to as the arbitrary and capricious review standard) would apply where the benefit plan contained language sufficient to authorize the party deciding the claim to interpret the plan (or insurance policy) and render benefit determinations. Where the language is used, benefit claimants (usually) face the challenge of proving to the reviewing court that a benefit denial was arbitrary and capricious. Quite a hurdle! Be sure your plans/policies include the requisite language.
Read now »
Related Content
Practical Guidance Updates Featuring the latest updates from your Practical Guidance account.
PRACTICAL GUIDANCE CUSTOMER EMAIL EDITION ON THE WEB
Experience results today with practical guidance, legal research, and data-driven insights—all in one place.Experience Lexis+