On September 26, 2013, in a case of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion in Papotto v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Company, holding that the district court's remand of an action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to the administrator of an insured policy was not a final decision and therefore not immediately appealable.

The plaintiff in this case was the beneficiary under her husband's accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) policy, which was:

The plaintiff sought payment of benefits from Hartford under the AD&D policy following her husband's death. However, the AD&D policy explicitly excluded losses sustained while an insured was intoxicated, and a posthumous toxicology report indicated that the husband's blood-alcohol level at death exceeded the legal limit. As a result, Hartford denied the plaintiff's claim for AD&D benefits. The insurer's decision was upheld on administrative appeal, after which the plaintiff sued the insurer in federal district court under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The district court determined that the policy implicitly required a causal connection between the intoxication and the loss. It remanded the case to the administrator to consider additional evidence and to determine whether intoxication caused or contributed to the husband's death. Both parties appealed.

The Third Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, appellate courts have jurisdiction to review only district court orders that are final. A final order ends the litigation on the merits. The Third Circuit, in analyzing whether a remand order to a plan's administrator in an ERISA action is a final order, joined its sister courts in concluding that remands to administrators under ERISA plans are analogous to remands to administrative agencies.

The Third Circuit noted the general principle that district court orders remanding cases to administrative agencies are not final and not appealable. However, the court acknowledged that, under Kreider Dairy Farms, Inc. v. Glickman, a case may be excepted from the final judgment rule. The Third Circuit determined that it may exercise appellate jurisdiction over remands to administrative agencies when all of the following factors are present:

In applying these factors, the Third Circuit concluded that the district court's remand order was not final because:

The Third Circuit also denied appellate jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine.

Counsel should be aware that a district court's remand of a case to an administrator of an ERISA plan generally is not immediately appealable unless the remand order finally resolves an important issue and the district court does not retain jurisdiction.