A phrase commonly used in insurance policies — "satisfactory to us" — has sharply divided federal appellate courts. Now the 3rd Circuit has sided with the minority view, holding that the phrase is ambiguous and that, under ERISA, the standard of review in court should therefore be de novo.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *