Eleventh Circuit Precedent Continues to Shape Limited Discovery in ERISA Cases

In Miller v. American United Life Insurance Co., No. 8:25-CV-1670-KKM-AAS, 2025 WL 3269397 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 24, 2025), the Middle District of Florida granted a claimant’s request for limited discovery beyond the administrative record in an ERISA long-term disability (LTD) benefits case.

Although ERISA cases are often reviewed based solely on what the claims administrator considered, the court emphasized that limited discovery is appropriate where the standard of review is arbitrary and capricious—a standard that applies when the plan grants the administrator discretionary authority.

The court noted that Ms. Miller, who seeks LTD benefits under her employer-sponsored ERISA plan, is entitled to obtain certain information needed to determine the proper standard of review, assess potential conflicts of interest, and evaluate whether the insurer conducted a full and fair review of her claim. Even though the insurer did not concede the applicable standard, both sides agreed to proceed under the framework applied when arbitrary-and-capricious review is used.

Why Limited Discovery Is Allowed in ERISA Cases

Under Eleventh Circuit precedent, the scope of permissible discovery depends on whether the review is de novo or arbitrary and capricious. The court cited Kirwan v. Marriott Corp., 10 F.3d 784, 789 (11th Cir. 1994), for the principle that de novo review allows broader evidentiary development, whereas deferential review typically confines the court to the record before the administrator.

But even under a deferential standard, courts recognize that some information critical to evaluating an ERISA denial of benefits is not found in the administrative file. Crume v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 388 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1345 (M.D. Fla. 2005), aff’d, 387 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (M.D. Fla. 2005) confirms this point, explaining that information “known by the administrator” can be discovered only through limited, targeted questioning.

This includes assessing how a decision was made, who was involved, and whether conflicts or procedural irregularities influenced the outcome.

In Miller, the court followed this established reasoning and authorized discovery so the claimant could explore the decision-making process and potential conflicts affecting her claim.

The Cerrito Framework: What Discovery Is Allowed

The court adopted the five-factor discovery framework established in Cerrito v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 209 F.R.D. 663, 664 (M.D. Fla. 2002), which permits inquiry into core issues that help courts determine whether an administrator acted reasonably and in compliance with ERISA’s procedural safeguards.

Under Cerrito, discovery may address:

1. What information the fiduciary considered in making the benefits decision.
2. Whether the fiduciary was competent to evaluate the medical and vocational evidence.
3. How the decision was reached, including internal procedures and evaluative steps.
4. Whether the fiduciary sought outside technical or medical assistance, as required for a full and fair review.
5. Whether any conflict of interest influenced the decision.

Miller expands this slightly, permitting additional inquiries into whether the insurer followed proper procedures, whether the record is complete, and the proper standard of review.

How Crume Reinforces the Right to Targeted Discovery

In Crume, the insurer argued that no discovery should be permitted because ERISA review is limited to the administrative record. The court rejected that argument, reiterating that limited discovery is essential when evaluating whether an administrator’s decision was arbitrary, uninformed, or tainted by conflict.

The Crume decision emphasized that courts must be able to examine:

• what the administrator considered,
• whether the administrator was competent, and
• whether the administrator’s procedures complied with ERISA.

This reasoning directly supports the Miller court’s decision to allow Ms. Miller to question American United’s corporate representative on these same issues.

Why Miller Matters for Claimants and Practitioners

Together, Miller, Cerrito, and Crume underscore a consistent theme in ERISA disability litigation: although courts often review LTD denials based on the administrative record, limited discovery is not an exception—it is a necessary tool to ensure transparency and fairness.

For claimants, this means:

• You may obtain information about how your insurer evaluated your claim.
• You can explore whether a conflict of interest influenced the denial.
• You may uncover missing or incomplete records that affect review.

For practitioners, Miller reinforces that the Middle District of Florida continues to follow well-established national authority allowing limited discovery to safeguard ERISA’s “full and fair review” requirement.