CA1: Justice O’Connor writes on ERISA

McGill v. Minnesota Mutual, No. 07-2668 (unpublished).  In this ERISA case, the plaintiff argues that the actual policy differed from the policy he applied for, and therefore they were guilty of fraud and misrepresentation, and a breach of a fiduciary duty.  Applying Virginia law and basic contract principles, the Justice O’Conner write that applications for insurance are not insurance, and therefore, even though he claims he never saw the policy, he can’t argue that it was altered.