 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bauer v. Kar Products2/29/1988
fees because LINA attempted to justify its argument on ERISA on the basis that it "could not have known that ERISA standards applied to the claims raised in Maryetta Bauer's pleadings."
Plaintiff's counsel contends that LINA argued to the federal court when it attempted to remove the cause from the state court that it was unaware of the ERISA application and the removability of the state law claim until the Supreme Court decision in Pilot Life, supra. The Federal District Court, however, ruled that LINA should have known that ERISA may apply because the pleadings clearly raised an ERISA claim.
While the attempted raising of the ERISA claims on appeal required extensive briefing and documents to be filed by counsel for Maryetta F. Bauer in this Court as well as oral argument thereon, it appears that the raising of the issues in this Court came from appropriate caution by LINA's counsel and accordingly sanctions in the form of attorney fees will not be required.
The partial summary judgment of the District Court in favor of Maryetta F. Bauer and against LINA is affirmed. The cause is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE and MR. JUSTICES HARRISON, WEBER, HUNT, GULBRANDSON and McDONOUGH concur.
|