Justia ERISA Opinion Summaries

The 401(k) services industry engages in “revenue sharing,” an arrangement allowing mutual funds to share a portion of the fees that they collect from investors with entities that provide services to the mutual funds, the investors, or both. Until recently the practice was opaque to individual investors and many 401(k) plan sponsors. As the existence and extent of revenue sharing has become more widely known, lawsuits were filed, alleging that the practice violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The district court awarded summary judgment to AUL, an Indiana-based insurance company that offers investment, record-keeping, and other administrative services to 401(k) plans. The court ruled that AUL was not a fiduciary of the Leimkuehler Profit Sharing Plan with respect to AUL’s revenue-sharing practices. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Although “very little about the mutual fund industry or the management of 401(k) plans can plausibly be described as transparent,” AUL is not acting as a fiduciary for purposes of 29 U.S.C. 1002(21)(A) when it makes decisions about, or engages in, revenue sharing. View "Leimkuehler v. Am. United Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Saint Vincent's alleged that Morgan Stanley - the fiduciary manager of the fixed-income portfolio of Saint Vincent Catholic Medical Centers Retirement Plan - violated its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Saint Vincent's alleged that Morgan Stanley disproportionately invested the portfolio's assets in mortgaged-backed securities, including the purportedly riskier subcategory of "nonagency" mortgage-backed securities, despite warning signs that these investments were unsound. Although Saint Vincent's, as the fiduciary administrator of an ERISA-governed plan, was in a position to plead its claims with greater factual detail than was typically accessible to plaintiffs prior to discovery, and although it received two opportunities to amend its complaint, the Amended Complaint failed to plead sufficient, nonconclusory factual allegations to show that Morgan Stanley failed to meet its fiduciary responsibilities under ERISA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Amended Complaint. View "Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Morgan Stanley Inv. Mgmt. Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed this ERISA action against Sun Life and Health Insurance Company (Sun) after Sun reduced his disability payments under an ERISA-qualified plan (Plan) because he was also receiving disability compensation under the Veterans' Benefits Act. The district court entered judgment on the record for Plaintiff. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) because Sun's decision to offset Plaintiff's service-connected disability compensation (VA benefits) was governed entirely by its interpretation of several statutes, the district court ought to have reviewed de novo Sun's determination that Plaintiff's VA benefits were "other income" under the plan; and (2) Plaintiff's VA benefits were not "other income" for purposes of reducing the payment Sun owed Plaintiff under the Plan. View "Hannington v. Sun Life & Health Ins. Co." on Justia Law

DM&E and its president and CEO, defendant, entered into an Employment Agreement to encourage his retention following an anticipated change of control. When DM&E terminated defendant without cause and triggered the Employment Agreement's severance provision, defendant filed a demand for arbitration under the Employment Agreement. DM&E then filed this action in federal court to enjoin the arbitration. The court agreed with the district court that the benefits sought in defendant's arbitration demand were not claims for benefits due under an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., plan. The court held that it lacked federal subject matter jurisdiction to consider arbitrability, or any other issue arising under the Employment Agreement. View "Dakota, MN & Eastern R.R. v. Schieffer" on Justia Law

Former employees of AK Steel filed a class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), including claims for a “whipsaw” calculation of their benefits from a pension plan in which they participated before terminating their employment. The employees were originally involved in a related class action that included identical claims against the same defendants, but were excluded from that litigation due to their execution of a severance agreement and release that each of them signed during the that litigation. The district court ruled in favor of the employees. The Sixth Circuit reversed an award of prejudgment interest for failure to consider case-specific factors, but otherwise affirmed denial of a motion to dismiss; class certification; and partial summary judgment on liability. The employees’s future pension claims were not released as a matter of law because the whipsaw claims had not accrued at the time of the execution of the severance agreements and because the scope of the contracts did not relate to future ERISA claims. View "Schumacher v. AK Steel Corp." on Justia Law

Judge, who worked as an airline baggage handler and ramp agent for 20 years, underwent surgery to repair an aortic valve and a dilated ascending aorta. He applied for disability benefits under a group insurance policy issued by MetLife. MetLife denied benefits, finding that Judge was not totally and permanently disabled under the terms of the Plan. After exhausting internal administrative procedures, Judge sued to recover benefits under 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The district court granted judgment on the administrative record in favor of MetLife. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that MetLife applied the wrong definition of “total disability,” erred in failing to obtain vocational evidence before concluding that Judge was not totally and permanently disabled, erred in conducting a file review by a nurse in lieu of having Judge undergo independent medical examination, and that there was a conflict of interest because MetLife both evaluates claims and pays benefits under the plan. View "Judge v. Metro. Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Beneficiaries sued Edison under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Beneficiaries claimed that their pension plan had been managed imprudently and in a self-interested fashion. The court rejected both parties' timeliness arguments and affirmed the district court's application of ERISA's six-year limitations period. Because the DOL's interpretation of how the safe harbor functions were consistent with the statutory language, the court concluded that the district court properly decided that section 404(c) of Title I of ERISA did not preclude merits consideration of beneficiaries' claims. The court reserved the question of whether the Ninth Circuit should adopt a rule akin to that articulated in Spano v. Boeing Co. regarding class action certification. On the merits, the court was satisfied that revenue sharing as carried out by Edison did not violate ERISA; Edison did not violate its duty of prudence by including several investment vehicles in the Plan menu; but Edison had been imprudent in deciding to include retail-class shares of three specific mutual funds in the Plan menu. View "Tibble v. Edison International" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's grant of Aetna's motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the insurer improperly denied plaintiff long-term disability benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Because Aetna's reservation of discretion was sufficient to compel use of the arbitrary and capricious standard of review, the court affirmed summary judgment to Aetna on its denial of benefits. The court also held that Aetna's action seeking return of overpaid benefits was properly brought under 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3) as an equitable counterclaim. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment on the counterclaim. View "Thurber v. Aetna Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued the administrators of CAAIG contending that they breached their fiduciary duties to CAAIG under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., by failing to ensure that CAAIG had sufficient assets with which to satisfy the judgment. The district court agreed and entered judgment against the Plan Administrators. The court concluded that LIHS had standing under ERISA 502(a) as a fiduciary of the Plan; the Underfunding Claim and EOC Suffolk Delinquency Claim were timely; the Administrators conceded that the breach of a contractual obligation in the Plan documents constituted a breach of their fiduciary duties under section 404(a)(1) of ERISA; and the Administrators breached their fiduciary duties with respect to the Underfunding Claim and the EOC Suffolk Delinquency Claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "L.I. Head Start Child Dev. Servs., Inc. v. Economic Opportunity Comm'n of Nassau Cnty., Inc." on Justia Law

Tompkins began working in 1978 and was a participant in the Fund, a multi-employer pension fund established and administered under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001. In 1999, Tompkins was granted a disability pension based on chronic asthmatic bronchitis, which he attributed to working with cement dust for 22 years. Tompkins’s application included agreement to be bound by all the Fund’s rules and regulations, although he did not inquire about those rules or make any effort to find out what they were. Upon receiving his first monthly payment of $2,115.43, he was required to sign a Retirement Declaration that provided notice of disqualifying employment for plan participants receiving retirement pensions but did not include the rules and regulations specific to disability pensioners. In 2007, the Fund suspended his disability pension, claiming that his full-time employment in 2005 and 2006 indicated that he no longer met the definition of “total and permanent disability.” The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Fund. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Although the Fund acknowledged ambiguity, it based its decision on a reasonable interpretation. View "Tompkins v. Cent. Laborers' Pension Fund" on Justia Law