October Term 2003 · Docket 02-1845
Can ERISA participants sue insurers in state court for tort damages?
Insurers argue federal law blocks state tort claims. Patients argue state law allows such suits.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Estrada argued participants may seek consequential and punitive damages.
Feldman argued the government position appears in a brief footnote.
Mattax argued Texas law imposes a duty of ordinary care.
Young argued the case involves complete preemption doctrine.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 33-47 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 33-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 17-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 45-15 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 45-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 46, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 46, lines 21-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 46, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 46, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 5-7
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on whether federal ERISA law preempts state tort claims for denied benefits.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 17-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 45-15 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 45-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 46, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 46, lines 41-1
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 23, 2004.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 5-7
What each side wants
Aetna wants the Court to bar state tort damages claims.
Davila wants the Court to allow state tort damages claims.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 17-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 45-15 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 45-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 46, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 46, lines 41-1
What each side says
Aetna argues ERISA completely preempts state tort law.
Davila argues state law imposes independent duties on insurers.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 17-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 45-15 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 45-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 46, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 46, lines 41-1
What the justices asked
Rehnquist asked what damages the government thinks are recoverable.
Rehnquist asked Estrada to respond to three specific points.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 33-47 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 33-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 46, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 46, lines 21-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 5-7
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of federal preemption over state tort law. It determines whether patients can seek punitive damages in state courts. It shapes the balance between federal uniformity and state consumer protections.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 17-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 45-15 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 45-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 46, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 46, lines 41-1
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 33-47 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 33-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 46, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 46, lines 21-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 5-7
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 17-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 45-15 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 45-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 46, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 46, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 17-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 45-15 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 45-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 46, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 46, lines 41-1
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.