Conley v. Pitney Bowes
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
34 F.3d 714 (8th Cir. 1994)
Conley's (plaintiff) ERISA benefits contract with Pitney Bowes (defendant) required him to exhaust administrative appeal procedures before suing, but also required any benefits-denial notice to include instructions about those appeal procedures; Pitney Bowes's denial letter to Conley omitted any information about appeal procedures, including the exhaustion requirement itself. Conley sued without exhausting administrative remedies, and the district court granted Pitney Bowes summary judgment, reasoning Conley had constructive notice of the procedures through his benefits plan book.
Whether, in a contract for mutual promises where performance of one promised act is to come after performance of the other, the promise to perform the latter act is considered independent.