U.S. Supreme Court Rules that Plan Terms Govern Statute of Limitations

The U.S. Supreme Court recently unanimously ruled in Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life that a plan can specify a statute of limitations period as long as the period is reasonably long and it does not conflict with any controlling statute. In this case involving an insured disability plan, the plan’s limitation period was not inconsistent with state law.

The Supreme Court held that a plan’s contractual limitations period controls. The Court explained, “Absent a controlling statute to the contrary, a participant and a plan may agree by contract to a particular limitations period, even one that starts to run before the cause of action accrues, as long as the period is reasonable.” The Court further indicated that the contractual limitations period must not conflict with controlling statutes, such as state laws that require a minimum length of time for the limitations period.

ERIC members and trial members can read more here.