Justia ERISA Opinion Summaries

A man designated his sister as the beneficiary of his employer-issued life insurance policies, amounting to $150,000, with instructions that she distribute the proceeds to his three daughters. The man, suffering from declining health, relied on his sister to manage his finances, legal affairs, and healthcare decisions, creating a fiduciary relationship. After his death, the sister claimed the insurance proceeds for herself, contrary to the instructions. The daughters sought a constructive trust over the proceeds, claiming the sister was to hold the funds in trust for them, while the sister denied any fiduciary breach and asserted entitlement under the policy.The Allen Superior Court, after a bench trial, found no undue influence or fraud in the beneficiary designation but concluded that the sister breached her fiduciary duty by failing to distribute the proceeds as instructed. The court imposed a constructive trust in favor of the daughters, finding by clear and convincing evidence that the deceased intended for them to receive the insurance money. The sister appealed, arguing that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempted such state-law remedies and that the evidence did not meet the required standard. The Indiana Court of Appeals twice reversed the trial court, holding that ERISA preempted the remedy, but the Indiana Supreme Court remanded for application of the correct standard of proof without reaching the preemption issue.The Indiana Supreme Court, upon further review, held that the sister waived her ERISA preemption argument by not raising it in the trial court. The court affirmed the trial court's imposition of a constructive trust, concluding that the findings of a fiduciary relationship and breach of duty were supported by clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the daughters. View "Geels v. Flottemesch" on Justia Law

A Tennessee-based commercial bakery, which provides a self-funded health benefits plan governed by ERISA for its employees, structured its prescription drug benefits through a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) and created an in-house pharmacy offering lower copays to employees. Tennessee enacted laws targeting PBMs, requiring pharmacy network access for any willing provider and prohibiting cost-sharing incentives to steer participants to certain pharmacies, including those owned by the plan sponsor. The bakery and its PBM excluded a pharmacy from their network after an audit, and after the pharmacy filed administrative complaints under the new Tennessee law, the bakery sought declaratory and injunctive relief in federal court, claiming ERISA preempted these PBM-focused state laws.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee found that the bakery, as plan fiduciary, had standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge. The court concluded that the Tennessee PBM laws were preempted by ERISA because they required specific plan structures, governed central aspects of plan administration, and interfered with uniform national plan administration. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the bakery, permanently enjoining the Tennessee Commissioner from enforcing the PBM laws against the bakery’s health plan or its PBM.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court agreed with the district court’s analysis, holding that the challenged Tennessee PBM statutes have an impermissible connection with ERISA plans and are therefore preempted. The court found that the laws mandated network structure and cost-sharing provisions, interfering directly with ERISA plan administration. The Sixth Circuit also held that the ERISA saving clause did not preserve these laws from preemption due to the deemer clause’s application to self-funded plans. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "McKee Foods Corp. v. BFP Inc." on Justia Law

A construction company and several employee plaintiffs were involved in a labor dispute with a group of union-affiliated fringe benefit funds and their trustees. The company had employed members of a local union and, under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), was required to contribute to a set of employee benefit funds for each hour worked. When the CBA expired and was mutually terminated, the company and union failed to negotiate a new agreement. The company continued attempting to make contributions to the funds, but the funds’ trustees eventually refused to accept them unless the company provided written confirmation of its agreement to abide by the funds’ governing documents. The company declined, arguing that federal labor law required the funds to continue accepting contributions during negotiations. The funds then stopped accepting contributions, and the company placed the rejected payments into escrow.The company and employees filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, asserting that the funds’ trustees had breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by refusing the contributions, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court dismissed the complaints, finding that the ERISA claims were preempted by the Garmon doctrine, which generally requires courts to defer to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on matters arguably subject to sections 7 or 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The district court also denied motions for a preliminary injunction and for leave to amend the complaint.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ ERISA claims were preempted under the Garmon doctrine because they were inextricably linked to labor law questions subject to the NLRB’s primary jurisdiction. The court also found that the district court properly denied the requests for preliminary injunctive relief and for leave to amend the complaint, as any amendment would have been futile. View "Rieth-Riley Construction Co. v. Operating Engineers Local 324" on Justia Law

The trustees of an ERISA-regulated pension plan invested in six classes of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBSs). Three of these investments were in notes issued by Delaware statutory trusts via indenture agreements, while the other three were in regular-interest certificates issued by trusts governed under New York law and classified as REMICs for tax purposes. The trustees alleged that the mortgage servicers mismanaged the loans and engaged in self-dealing, violating ERISA fiduciary duties. They also claimed that Wells Fargo, as master servicer for some trusts, failed to adequately supervise Ocwen (another servicer) and failed to pursue litigation on behalf of the trusts.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, holding that, under the Department of Labor’s regulation, only the RMBSs themselves—not the underlying mortgages—were plan assets for ERISA purposes. The court determined that both the notes and the regular-interest certificates were treated as indebtedness without substantial equity features, so the look-through exception did not apply. The trustees’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment was denied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The court agreed that the notes issued by the indenture trusts lacked substantial equity features and thus the underlying mortgages were not plan assets. However, it held that the regular-interest certificates represented beneficial interests in the REMIC trusts; under the controlling regulation, the assets of such a trust in which a plan holds a beneficial interest are themselves plan assets. The case was remanded to the district court to consider whether Ocwen acted as an ERISA fiduciary with respect to the mortgages underlying the REMIC trusts. View "Powell v. Ocwen Fin. Corp." on Justia Law

Retired employees of two companies, who participated in their employers’ defined benefit pension plans, brought class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). These plaintiffs, all married, claimed that their plans calculated joint and survivor annuity benefits using mortality tables based on outdated data from the 1960s and 1970s. Because life expectancies have increased since then, the plaintiffs asserted that using such outdated mortality assumptions improperly reduced their benefits, resulting in joint and survivor annuities that were not the actuarial equivalent of the single life annuities to which they would otherwise be entitled, as required by ERISA.Each group of plaintiffs filed suit in federal district court—one in the Eastern District of Michigan against the Kellogg plans and one in the Western District of Tennessee against the FedEx plan—asserting that the use of obsolete actuarial assumptions violated 29 U.S.C. § 1055(d) and constituted a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The district courts in both cases dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim, holding that ERISA does not require use of any particular mortality table or actuarial assumption in calculating benefits for married participants, and thus the allegations, even if true, did not establish a violation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the dismissals de novo. The court held that, under ERISA’s statutory requirement that joint and survivor annuities be “actuarially equivalent” to single life annuities, plans must use actuarial assumptions, including mortality data, that reasonably reflect the life expectancies of current participants. The court concluded that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that the use of outdated mortality tables was unreasonable and could violate ERISA. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district courts’ judgments and remanded both cases for further proceedings. View "Reichert v. Kellogg Co." on Justia Law

Two former employees of a financial services company, each a participant in the employer’s defined contribution retirement plan, sued the company on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated plan participants. They alleged that the company, as plan sponsor and fiduciary, breached its duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by selecting and retaining certain BlackRock LifePath Index Funds as investment options, which they claimed were imprudent and caused monetary losses to their individual plan accounts. The plaintiffs sought recovery of losses under ERISA sections 502(a)(2) and 409(a).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss most of the claims, holding that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged a breach of fiduciary duty. It then certified a class of all plan participants and beneficiaries with investments in the BlackRock funds during the relevant period, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1), finding that ERISA fiduciary-duty claims are inherently suitable for class treatment because they are brought on behalf of the plan and that allowing individual suits would risk inconsistent standards or impair interests of absent participants. The district court also found that the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) was satisfied.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and vacated the class certification order. The Fourth Circuit held that, in the context of a defined contribution plan, claims under ERISA § 502(a)(2) for monetary losses to individual accounts are inherently individualized and cannot be joined in a mandatory class under Rule 23(b)(1), which does not provide for notice or opt-out rights. The court also held that the claims failed to satisfy the commonality prerequisite because many class members did not experience the same injury. The district court’s order was thus reversed and vacated. View "Trauernicht v. Genworth Financial Inc." on Justia Law

An employee of MITRE Corporation, serving as a Principal Business Process Engineer, contracted COVID-19 twice. After experiencing long-COVID symptoms that prevented her from returning to her occupation, she applied for long-term disability (LTD) benefits under her employer’s ERISA-governed plan, administered by Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company. Reliance denied her claim, asserting she was not “Totally Disabled.” She submitted further medical documentation and filed an internal appeal. The plan and ERISA regulations required Reliance to respond within 45 days, extendable by another 45 days only for “special circumstances,” with written notice specifying the reason and expected decision date.Reliance took more than 45 days to issue a decision, did not specify a date for resolution, and cited only routine medical review as justification for delay. The employee sued in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia after Reliance failed to timely decide her appeal. The district court found that Reliance had not complied with ERISA’s timing and notice requirements, held that de novo review (rather than deferential review) was appropriate, and ruled in favor of the employee, awarding LTD benefits and interest.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed whether Reliance’s delay deprived it of deferential review of its benefit determination. The court held that, because Reliance failed to decide the internal appeal within the required time and had not justified its delay with a special circumstance, it forfeited any entitlement to deference. The Fourth Circuit affirmed that de novo review applied, found no error in the district court’s factual findings or legal conclusions, and upheld the award of benefits to the employee. View "Cogdell v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company" on Justia Law

The case involves a multi-employer pension fund seeking to collect withdrawal liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 from two corporate entities, which the fund alleged were successors to a defunct contributing employer. The companies denied any liability, contending they had never agreed to make contributions to the fund, were not under common control with the original employer, and were not otherwise subject to the fund’s claims. After the fund notified the companies of the alleged liability several years after the original employer ceased operations, the companies sought a declaratory judgment in federal court to clarify that they were not liable. The fund counterclaimed for withdrawal liability, as well as damages and interest.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey found genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether the companies could be treated as employers under the applicable law, thus precluding summary judgment on that issue. Nevertheless, the District Court granted judgment in favor of the companies on a separate basis: it concluded that the fund’s eight-year delay in providing notice and demanding payment of withdrawal liability failed to meet the statutory requirement under 29 U.S.C. § 1399(b)(1) that such notice be given “as soon as practicable.” The court reasoned that this requirement is an independent statutory element—not an affirmative defense subject to waiver or arbitration—and that the fund’s failure to comply with it barred any recovery.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. The Third Circuit held that timely notice and demand is a necessary element for a withdrawal liability claim to accrue under the MPPAA; if the fund fails to act “as soon as practicable,” its claim cannot proceed, regardless of whether the issue is raised in arbitration or by the parties. Arbitration was not required in this circumstance, and the District Court properly resolved the question. View "RTI Restoration Technologies Inc v. International Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension Fund" on Justia Law

In this case, a school bus company’s employees voted in 2020 to change their union representation, shifting from a Teamsters local to an Amalgamated Transit Workers local. As a result, the company was required under federal law to withdraw from the multiemployer pension plan affiliated with the old union and begin contributing to a new plan aligned with the new union. This withdrawal triggered several obligations under ERISA, including the company’s duty to pay “withdrawal liability” to the old plan and the old plan’s obligation to transfer certain assets and liabilities to the new plan relating to the employees who switched unions.After the old pension fund assessed withdrawal liability of approximately $1.8 million, the company argued that, under 29 U.S.C. § 1415(c), this liability should be reduced by the difference between the liabilities and assets transferred to the new plan. The old plan disagreed, interpreting the statute differently and contending that no reduction should occur. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to the company, holding that the statute required a $1.8 million reduction in withdrawal liability.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the District Court’s interpretation of the statute de novo. The Second Circuit found that the phrase “unfunded vested benefits” in Section 1415(c) is ambiguous, but, after examining the statute’s structure and purpose, concluded that the District Court’s interpretation was correct. The court held that “unfunded vested benefits allocable to the employer” under Section 1415(c) refers to the entire amount of liabilities transferred to the new plan, not reduced by transferred assets. As a result, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment, approving the $1.8 million withdrawal liability reduction and dismissing the company’s cross-appeal as moot. View "Mar-Can Transp. Co. v. Loc. 854 Pension Fund" on Justia Law

A former employee of a bank holding company, who participated in a company-sponsored retirement savings plan, brought suit alleging that the bank, the plan’s administrative committee, and a subsidiary breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA, resulting in financial loss to his plan distribution. After the employee’s separation and payout, the company amended the plan in early 2024 to add a retroactive arbitration clause that required all claims to proceed individually in arbitration, barred class or representative actions, and included a jury trial waiver and a provision that only individual relief could be awarded.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas denied the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement was not valid under Texas law due to lack of consideration. The company appealed, arguing that the plan’s consent, not the individual participant’s, was sufficient to bind parties to arbitration for claims brought on behalf of the plan under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2), and that the arbitration clause was enforceable. The company also preemptively addressed potential objections under the effective vindication doctrine and claims that the arbitration provisions unlawfully limited statutory remedies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the denial of arbitration as to the § 1132(a)(2) claim, holding that the plan’s consent through its unilateral amendment provision was sufficient to bind the participant to arbitration for plan-based claims, but affirmed the denial as to the participant’s individual claims because he had not consented. The court further held that the arbitration clause’s prohibition on representative actions and its limitation to individual relief violated the effective vindication doctrine, and voided the standard-of-review provision to the extent it applied to fiduciary-breach claims. The case was remanded for the district court to determine whether the offending arbitration provisions could be severed. View "Parrott v. International Bank" on Justia Law