The Glenn rule: process and conflicts of interest

Process can change how a court weighs a conflict of interest. Sometimes it changes the outcome. That’s the Glenn rule, and a Ninth Circuit ERISA decision from last month shows it in action.

Metropolitan Life v. Glenn (2008) tells courts how to handle a structural conflict in ERISA review. The conflict is a factor, but it isn’t automatically fatal.

What the fiduciary did about it determines how much it counts.

Steps that reduce bias and build a fair record can push the conflict toward “little weight.” In practice, that means the conflict matters less. Evidence of biased handling or incentives that reward a particular outcome pushes it the other way, and the conflict starts driving the analysis.

Totality, not a checklist.

Wallace v. Hartford Life (April 17) is a clean example.

Hartford was both the plan administrator and the insurer. Same entity deciding whether to pay claims out of its own pocket. Classic structural conflict.

The plaintiff lost anyway because Hartford built a record of active debiasing: independent medical exam, independent reviews, real back-and-forth after the claimant pushed back, and a full and fair review with a lengthy written explanation.

The conflict existed. The process kept it from dominating the analysis, and Hartford’s denial held up.

Bottom line: conflicts in ERISA aren’t disqualifying on their own. The record around them is what determines how a court reads them.