Egelhoff v. Egelhoff Ex Rel. Breiner Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A state law automatically revoking an ex-spouse’s beneficiary status upon divorce is preempted by ERISA. The Court held that ERISA requires plan administrators to follow the plan documents, and the state law impermissibly interfered with this federal scheme.
Legal Significance: The decision solidifies ERISA’s broad preemptive power over state laws that affect the administration of employee benefit plans, particularly those dictating beneficiary designations. It prioritizes national uniformity and adherence to plan documents over state domestic relations and probate laws.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
David Egelhoff was a participant in a life insurance policy and a pension plan provided by his employer, both of which were governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). He designated his wife, Donna Egelhoff, as the beneficiary for both plans. The couple subsequently divorced. Approximately two months later, David died intestate, having never removed Donna as the named beneficiary on the plan documents. The plan administrator paid the life insurance proceeds to Donna. David’s children from a previous marriage, his statutory heirs, filed suit in Washington state court to recover the proceeds. They invoked a state statute that automatically revokes any beneficiary designation in favor of a former spouse on a nonprobate asset upon divorce, treating the ex-spouse as if they had predeceased the decedent. The Washington Supreme Court found the statute was not preempted by ERISA. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempt a state law that automatically revokes a former spouse’s beneficiary designation under an ERISA-governed plan upon divorce?
Yes. The Washington statute is preempted because it has an impermissible “connection Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse ci
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempt a state law that automatically revokes a former spouse’s beneficiary designation under an ERISA-governed plan upon divorce?
Conclusion
Egelhoff strongly affirms the supremacy of ERISA's plan document rule, establishing that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commod
Legal Rule
A state law "relates to" an ERISA plan, and is thus preempted Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. D
Legal Analysis
The Court, writing through Justice Thomas, concluded that the Washington statute was Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscin
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Holding: ERISA preempts state laws that automatically revoke a former spouse’s