Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co. and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
12-729	2d Cir.	Oct 15, 2013	Dec 16, 2013	9-0	Thomas	OT 2013

Holding: Absent a controlling statute to the contrary, a participant in an employee benefit plan covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the plan may agree by contract to a particular limita"tions period, even one that starts to run before the cause of action accrues, as long as the period is reasonable.

Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on December 16, 2013.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Opinion analysis: ERISA limitations periods are enforceable (Tejinder Singh, December 16, 2013)
Argument analysis: Nobody seems worried about ERISA limitations periods (Tejinder Singh, October 17, 2013)
Argument preview: When can an ERISA limitations period start to run? (Tejinder Singh, October 14, 2013)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
12/11/2012	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 14, 2013)
12/11/2012	Appendix of Julie Heimeshoff filed.
01/30/2013	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013.
02/07/2013	Response Requested . (Due March 11, 2013)
03/11/2013	Brief of respondents Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co., and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in opposition filed.
03/26/2013	Reply of petitioner Julie Heimeshoff filed. (Distributed)
03/27/2013	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 12, 2013.
04/15/2013	Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.
04/30/2013	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 25, 2013.
04/30/2013	The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 20, 2013.
06/18/2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.
06/19/2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondents Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co., and Wal-Mart Stores Incorporated.
06/25/2013	Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)
06/25/2013	Brief of petitioner Julie Heimeshoff filed.
07/02/2013	Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.
07/02/2013	Brief amici curiae of AARP and National Employment Lawyers Association filed.
07/02/2013	Brief amicus curiae of United Policyholders filed.
07/22/2013	CIRCULATED.
07/23/2013	SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, October 15, 2013.
08/20/2013	Brief of respondents Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co., and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
08/27/2013	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
08/27/2013	Brief amici curiae of American Council of Life Insurers, et al. filed. (Distributed)
08/27/2013	Brief amicus curiae of DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar filed. (Distributed)
09/05/2013	Record from U.S.C.A. for 2nd Circuit is electronic (Not PACER).
09/05/2013	Record from U.S.D.C. for District of Connecticut is eletronic and is located on PACER.
09/19/2013	Reply of petitioner Julie Heimeshoff filed. (Distributed)
10/01/2013	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
10/15/2013	Argued. For petitioner: Matthew W.H. Wessler, Washington, D. C.; and Ginger D. Anders, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Catherine M.A. Carroll, Washington, D. C.
12/16/2013	Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
01/17/2014	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Issue: When should a statute of limitations accrue for judicial review of an disability adverse benefit determination under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act?