From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Darden
United States Supreme Court
503 U.S. 318, 112 S. Ct. 1344, 117 L. Ed. 2d 581 (1992)
Robert Darden (plaintiff) operated an insurance agency. From 1962 until 1980, Darden contracted with Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (Nationwide) (defendant) and agreed to sell only Nationwide policies in exchange for sales commissions and enrollment in Nationwide’s retirement plan. Darden’s contract specified that Darden would forfeit his benefits under the plan if he sold insurance for Nationwide’s competitors within one year of the termination of his agreement with Nationwide and within 25 miles of his prior business location. In November of 1980, Nationwide ended its relationship with Darden. The following month, Darden began selling insurance for Nationwide’s competitors from his prior business location. Nationwide informed Darden that his activities disqualified him from receiving benefits under Nationwide’s plan. Darden sued Nationwide, asserting that his benefits were nonforfeitable under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Darden brought his action under a provision of ERISA that allowed plan participants to sue to enforce ERISA’s provisions. ERISA defined the term participant as an employee or former employee who is or may become eligible to receive benefits under an employer’s employee benefit plan. ERISA defined employee as any individual employed by an employer. The district court examined Darden’s relationship with Nationwide and concluded, based in part on common-law agency principles, that Darden should be considered an independent contractor rather than Nationwide’s employee. The court thus granted summary judgment for Nationwide. The appellate court vacated the decision, holding that even though Darden would probably not qualify as Nationwide’s employee under common-law agency principles, the common-law definition should not be used to determine whether someone is an employee for ERISA purposes. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Souter, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 546,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.