Justia ERISA Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff brought this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., against AT&T after her claim to recoup her lost benefits was denied. The district court found that AT&T unreasonably denied plaintiff's claim and failed to adequately notify her of a material change to its pension plan that allowed her to collect full benefits earlier than she had originally understood. The court held that the district court properly considered limited evidence outside of the administrative record but known to AT&T when it rendered plaintiff's benefits determination; correctly determined that AT&T breached its statutory and fiduciary duties to plaintiff; and did not err in awarding plaintiff her lost benefits. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Helton v. AT&T Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff left his senior position in 1996, having participated in the Retirement Income Security Plan for Employees (RISPE), a tax-qualified defined benefits plan that guarantees specified retirement benefits, and in the Excess Benefit Plan, a defined unfunded benefits pension plan under which benefits are paid directly by the employer rather than by a trust funded by the employer. Both plans allowed him to choose between an annuity and an actuarial equivalent lump sum distribution. In 2009 he received his RISPE lump sum, $325,054.28 and his Excess Plan lump sum, $218,726.38. The discount rate used to calculate lump sum RISPE benefits was a “segment rate,” 26 U.S.C. 417(e)(3)(C), of 5.24 percent. The discount rate applied to the Excess Plan lump sum was 7.5 percent. The district court rejected his ERISA claim that the discount rate required by both plans was a rate computed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation on the basis of annuity premiums charged by insurance companies. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. With respect to the RISPE, the accrued benefit, which cannot be reduced retroactively, is the annuity; the lump sum is not the accrued benefit and can be reduced retroactively. The court rejected a conflict-of-interest argument concerning calculation of the Excess Benefit Plan discount rate. View "Dennison v. MONY Life Ret. Income Sec. Plan for Emps." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought this declaratory judgment action, asserting that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., preempted a state court order requiring him to turn over benefits received under ERISA retirement and life insurance plans owned by his deceased ex-wife. At issue was whether ERISA prohibited a state court from ordering plaintiff, who had previously waived his right to those benefits, to relinquish them to the administrators of the ex-wife's estate. The court held that ERISA did not preempt post-distribution suits against ERISA beneficiaries because the court detected no conflict with either ERISA's objectives or relevant Supreme Court precedent. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Andochick v. Byrd" on Justia Law

Petitioner Jose Cardoza brought this lawsuit pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), to challenge United of Omaha Life Insurance Company’s calculation of his long-term disability benefits (LTD benefits). United of Omaha answered, asserting its calculation was appropriate, and counterclaimed, demanding that Petitioner reimburse it for payments of short-term disability benefits (STD benefits) which it claimed were miscalculated. On cross-motions, the district court granted Petitioner's motion for summary judgment and denied United of Omaha’s motion, concluding United of Omaha’s decision to calculate Petitioner's LTD benefits and recalculate his STD benefits as it did was arbitrary and capricious. United of Omaha appealed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court erred in granting Petitioner's motion for summary judgment with respect to United of Omaha’s LTD benefits calculation: "[t]he plain language of the long-term disability benefits policy instructed United of Omaha to base its calculation of Cardoza’s LTD benefits on his earnings as verified by the premium it received. Thus, United of Omaha’s decision to do so was reasonable and made in good faith." The district court did not err, however, in granting Petitioner's motion for summary judgment with respect to United of Omaha’s recalculation of his STD benefits and demand for reimbursement "United of Omaha’s decision to recalculate Cardoza’s STD benefits based on his earnings verified by premium rather than his actual earnings was not reasonable." The Court therefore reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Cardoza v. United of Omaha Life Insurance" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought a putative class action on behalf of current and former UBS and UBSFS employees, alleging that defendants violated various fiduciary duties imposed on them by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Plaintiffs argued that the district court erred in analyzing their claim for breach of the duty of prudence, as it applied a presumption of prudence to the fiduciaries of both investment plans at issue. The court held that the district court wrongly applied the presumption as to one of the two plans, the Savings and Investment Plan (SIP), as the SIP Plan Document neither required nor strongly encouraged investment in UBS stock or the UBS Stock Fund. The court held, however, that the District Court correctly applied the presumption of prudence as to the second plan, the Plus Plan, which required plan fiduciaries to invest in the UBS Stock Fund. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal order of the district court in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Plaintiffs' remaining arguments were addressed in a companion Summary Order. View "Taveras v. UBS AG et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal of his suit alleging claims of equitable estoppel and breach of fiduciary duties pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court held that plaintiff stated a claim for relief that was cognizable under ERISA, in light of CIGNA Corp. v. Amara. Because relief was available under the surcharge doctrine under Amara, the court did not address the equitable estoppel claim and the district court was free to consider that claim on remand. Finally, the district court did not err in dismissing Defendant Entergy Mississippi where plaintiff failed to allege that Entergy Mississippi sponsored or administered the plan or made any decisions with respect to his benefits. View "Gearlds, Jr. v. Entergy Services, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

A new owner informed paper mill employees that it was closing the mill with a likely shut-down date in late April. In March, plaintiffs received letters stating that their employment was being terminated effective May 2 and that, in exchange for a release, they would receive a severance package. Before plaintiffs submitted their executed release forms, the company indicated that it was no longer accepting release agreements and that it had decided to keep the plant open until October. Plaintiffs nonetheless signed and submitted the release and separation agreements they had received two weeks earlier. The company later stated that it would be extending a new severance offer and a bonus as an incentive to stay with the mill until October. Plaintiffs both stopped working at the mill on May 2 and started new jobs. The mill continued to operate. After leaving the mill and not receiving severance, plaintiffs requested it from the company’s severance plan. The plan administrator concluded that the two had voluntarily terminated their employment and denied their requests. Plaintiffs sued under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B).. The district court granted the plan summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Reddinger v. SENA Severance Pay Plan" on Justia Law

The Fund, a multi-employer pension plan under ERISA, has a Plan, providing for administration by a Board with authority to make benefit determinations and amend the Plan, including retroactively. No amendment may result in reduced benefits for any participant whose rights have vested, except in specified circumstances. Price began receiving Plan disability benefits under the “Total and Permanent Disability Benefit” category in 1990, after work-related injuries left him unable to work. In 2001, the Fund notified Price that he no longer qualified for benefits under this category, but that he could continue receiving benefits under provisions for “Occupational Disability Benefit.” His benefits were discontinued after 2006, according to an Amendment. Price became eligible for early retirement in 2012. The Board rejected an appeal. The district court granted Price judgment in his suit under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B). On remand from the Sixth Circuit, for review determination of vesting under the arbitrary and capricious standard, the judge again ruled in favor of Price. The Sixth Circuit again reversed; the court failed to look to the terms of the plan but instead found that because the Board’s decision letter did not discuss whether the benefits vested, the Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. View "Price v. Bd. of Trs. of IN Laborers' Pension Fund" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, as trustee of the Plan, brought this action against Principal, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. At issue was whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing to certify a class. The court held that the Confidential Agreement and consent judgment in this case permitted plaintiff to revive his individual claim in order to petition the district court for additional recovery and therefore, the district court's decision was not final. Further, plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of his individual claims rendered the case moot where plaintiff has relinquished his claims and there was no longer an Article III case or controversy. Accordingly, the court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. View "Ruppert v. Principal Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

When an employer participating in a multi-employer pension plan withdraws from the plan with unpaid liabilities, federal law can pierce corporate veils and impose liability on owners and related businesses. The Fund is a multi-employer pension plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act/Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act, 29 U.S.C. 1381-1461. Messina Trucking was subject to a collective bargaining agreement that required it to contribute to the Fund for retirement benefits. Messina Trucking permanently ceased to have an obligation to contribute to the Fund, triggering a “complete withdrawal” and incurring nearly $3.1 million in potential withdrawal liability. The Fund sought a declaratory judgment that defendants were jointly and severally liable for the withdrawal liability as “trades or businesses” under “common control” with Messina Trucking. The district court held that Mr. and Mrs. Messina, who owned and leased several residential properties as well as the property from which Messina Trucking operated, were not engaged in a “trade or business” and could not be held liable for the withdrawal liability, but that Messina Products, as a formal business organization could be held liable for Messina. The Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of the Fund, holding that both can be held liable. View "Cent. States Se & Sw Areas Pension Fund v. Messina" on Justia Law