AGO 1993-005.
Court | Connecticut |
Connecticut Attorney General Opinions
1993.
AGO 1993-005.
1993Opinion No. 1993-005Robert R. Googins, CommissionerDepartment of
Insurance165 Capitol AvenueHartford, CT 06106
Dear Commissioner Googins:
You have requested our advice on several questions related to
1992 Conn. Public Act 92-158, An Act Concerning Extending Continuation Benefits
to the Unemployed (hereinafter "Public Act 92-158"). Public Act 92-158 amended
Conn. Gen. Stat. e § 38a-538, which requires employers to offer employees
whose employment has terminated for reasons other than death the option to
purchase continued health insurance coverage under the employer's group health
plan at the same group rate. Public Act 92-158 extended the time period for
such continuation coverage from 78 weeks to 104 weeks.
Your questions concern the applicability of Public Act 92-158 in
light of the continuation coverage requirements contained in federal law. The
Employees Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") 29 U.S.C. e §
1001, et seq. was amended in 1985 by Public Law 99-272 (the "COBRA" amendments)
to require all employers of 20 or more employees who maintain a group health
plan to offer employees whose employment terminates the option to purchase
continued coverage under the group plan. Currently, under the COBRA amendments,
federal law requires that employees whose employment has terminated for reasons
other than death or gross misconduct be given the option to extend coverage for
eighteen months.
Your questions are addressed in the order presented in your
letter.
1. Does Public Act 92-158 apply to employers with less than 20
employees who maintain group health insurance plans or does ERISA operate to
preempt application of Public Act 92-158 to such employers?
ERISA regulates employee benefit plans established or maintained
by employers or employee organizations, with certain exceptions.1 Included in
the definition of employee benefit plans are plans in which employers provide
health benefits to employees.2 ERISA contains a broad preemption provision,
which states that the statute shall "supersede any and all State laws insofar
as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan." 29 U.S.C. e
§ 1144(a). (Emphasis added). However, the preemption provision is
qualified by the "insurance savings clause" which states that nothing in ERISA
"shall be construed to exempt or relieve any person from any law of any state
which regulates insurance, banking, or securities." 29 U.S.C. e §
1144(b)(2)(A). To answer your first question, we must determine whether Conn.
Gen. Stat. e § 38a-538 as amended by Public Act 92-158 is a law that
"relates to" an employee benefit plan, and if so, whether it escapes preemption
as a law regulating insurance.
In Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 (1983), the United
States Supreme Court discussed the breadth of ERISA's preemption provision. The
court stated that "[a] law relates to an employee benefit plan, in the normal
sense of the phrase, if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan."
Id. at 96-97. The legislative history of the preemption provision indicates
that Congress intended to reserve to the federal government the...
To continue reading
Request your trial