Justia ERISA Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs appealed from a decision granting defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiffs, participants in two retirement plans offered by defendants, brought suit alleging breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Plaintiff alleged that defendants acted imprudently by including employer stock as an investment option in the retirement plans and that defendants failed to provide adequate and truthful information to participants regarding the status of employer stock. The court held that the facts alleged by plaintiffs were, even if proven, insufficient to establish that defendants abused their discretion by continuing to offer plan participants the opportunity to invest in McGraw-Hill stock. The court also held that plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to prove that defendants made any statements, while acting in a fiduciary capacity, that they knew to be false. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "Gearren, et al. v. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, participants in retirement plans offered by defendants and covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., appealed from a judgment dismissing their ERISA class action complaint. Plan documents required that a stock fund consisting primarily of Citigroup common stock be offered among the plan's investment options. Plaintiffs argued that because Citigroup stock became an imprudent investment, defendants should have limited plan participants' ability to invest in it. The court held that plan fiduciaries' decision to continue offering participants the opportunity to invest in Citigroup stock should be reviewed for an abuse of discretion and the court found that they did not abuse their discretion here. The court also held that defendants did not have an affirmative duty to disclose to plan participants nonpublic information regarding the expected performance of Citigroup stock and that the complaint did not sufficiently allege that defendants, in their fiduciary capacities, made any knowing misstatements regarding Citigroup stock. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Gray, et al. v. Citigroup, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

IPS appealed the district court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration and stay plaintiffs' claims against it. Plaintiffs cross-appeal, disputing the preemption of their claims under the Employment Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., and alleging a lack of federal jurisdiction. The court found that jurisdiction was proper and affirmed the district court's denial of IPS's motion to compel arbitration. View "Ehlen Floor Covering, Inc., et al. v. Innovative Pension Strategies, Inc." on Justia Law

This appeal presented the question of whether a provision of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936, preempted Montana's "little HIPAA" law, Mont. Code Ann. 33-22-526(2)(a), for purposes of both conferring federal subject matter jurisdiction and defeating state-law causes of action on the merits. The federal and state HIPAA provisions at issue prohibited certain insurers from charging different premiums to similarly situated participants on account of a participant's health and status-related factor. The court affirmed the district court and held that federal HIPAA preempted the Montana law, both jurisdictionally and on the merits, because Montana's HIPAA provision was identical to, and expressly relied upon, federal law. The court held, however, that federal law did not preempt a claim for relief under a separate Montana unfair insurance practices statute that barred insurers from engaging in unfair discrimination when charging policy premiums to similarly situated individuals, Mont. Code Ann. 33-18-206(2). View "Fossen, et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of MT, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Steven Lucas filed suit against Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (Liberty Life), asserting that the company violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) when it denied his claim for long term disability benefits. Finding that the denial of benefits was not arbitrary and capricious, the district court entered judgment in favor of Liberty Life. Plaintiff appealed the district court's decision. Plaintiff was an employee of the Coca-Cola Company. Liberty Life both administered and insured Coca-Cola's long-term disability benefits plan. Under the plan, it has discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits. Plaintiff suffered a work-related injury requiring spinal surgery and, after a short period back on the job, stopped working. He filed a claim for long-term disability benefits in August 2005. In September 2007, Liberty Life terminated Plaintiff's benefits after determining that he was not eligible for continued benefits under the "any occupation" provision: while he might not be capable of performing his own occupation, he was capable of performing some occupation comparable to his former position. Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with Liberty Life, but the company upheld the denial of benefits. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Liberty Life's decision was supported by substantial evidence, and that Plaintiff failed to show that it was arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Lucas v. Liberty Life Assurance Company" on Justia Law

This appeal required the court to determine what effect, if any, a retiree benefits-related provision included in an asset purchase agreement had on the acquiring company's retiree benefits plans governed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1000 et seq. The court held that the provision constituted a valid plan amendment. Moreover, the court held that the provision was assumed, not rejected, in bankruptcy. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Evans, et al. v. Sterling Chemicals, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Appellant appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Sun Life in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., benefits case. At issue was whether Sun Life was entitled to offset from appellant's employer-provided long-term disability benefits the amount that appellant received in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits each month. The court held that VA benefits, for a wartime service-related disability, as a matter of statutory construction, did not derive from an act that was "similar to" the SSA or RRA, which were both federal insurance programs based upon employment and the amount of an award under their terms depended upon how much had been paid in. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded to the district court with directions to enter judgment in favor of appellant. View "Riley v. Sun Life and Health Ins., et al." on Justia Law

Appellant was terminated for cause from his employment with Northwest Airlines shortly after he was arrested for possession of marijuana. At the same time, appellant had pending with Northwest a request for disability retirement benefits. Northwest later granted appellant's request, but he was ineligible for certain retirement benefits as a result of the termination. Appellant sued Northwest, claiming that the termination violated section 510 of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1140. The district court denied Northwest's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but granted its motion for summary judgment. The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over the case where appellant's claim did not require an interpretation of a collectively bargained agreement. The court also held that appellant failed to show a causal connection between his termination and his application for disability retirement benefits. The court rejected appellant's remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Sturge v. Northwest Airlines, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued his former employer under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001, et seq., to recover profit sharing and retirement benefits that were allegedly withheld from him. The district court granted summary judgment for plaintiff on his claims that the employer breached its fiduciary duty of loyalty and violated ERISA's disclosure requirements. The district court also awarded plaintiff statutory penalties and attorney's fees. The court affirmed the district court's award of damages for breach of fiduciary duty and attorney's fees. The court held, however, that the summary allocation report contained no information about how a participant could elect to receive a rollover distribution, nor did it inform the participant of her rights under the profit-sharing plan. Therefore, the court remanded to the district court for additional findings on whether the employer failed to furnish plaintiff with the requisite documents under ERISA 104(b)(1), and if so, whether that omission served as a basis for statutory penalties. View "Kujanek v. Houston Poly Bag I, Ltd." on Justia Law

In 1992 a brokerage firm established a nonqualified defined benefit plan for a select group of highly compensated executives. The plan contains provisions that, if triggered, result in discontinuance of payments and forfeiture of benefits accrued, regardless of how long a participant has been enrolled. Plaintiffs are executives who left the firm and went to work for a rival company, triggering provisions that forfeited benefits. After exhausting their claims before the plan's administrative committee, they filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1053(a)(2), claiming improper denial of benefits. The district court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The existence of an ERISA plan is not a jurisdictional issue and defendants waived their argument that the plan was not an ERISA plan by neglecting to raise it until after summary judgment, but the district court should have remanded the issue of whether the plan is qualifies as a top-hat, deferred-compensation plan under section 201(2) of ERISA: a plan which is unfunded and is maintained by an employer primarily for the purpose of providing deferred compensation for a select group of management or highly compensated employees.View "Daft v. Advest, Inc." on Justia Law