Justia ERISA Opinion Summaries

Decedent, father of plaintiffs, died without naming a beneficiary of his Unum life insurance. Plaintiffs sued Unum, asserting a breach of the policy and an Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1002 et seq., violation. The district court concluded that they lacked standing and dismissed the suit. The court concluded that the estate's decision not to appeal precluded the children from having a reasonable or colorable claim to benefits. Because plaintiffs could not become entitled to benefits, the court held that the district court properly dismissed the case. View "A.J., et al v. UNUM, et al" on Justia Law

In this ERISA benefits case, the plan administrator (Appellant) appealed the district court's judgment that a deceased plan participant's stepsons, rather than his siblings, were entitled to the deceased's benefits. Appellant interpreted the term "children" as used in the plan to mean biological or legally adopted children. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the district court erred when it set aside Appellant's decision and granted judgment for the deceased's stepchildren, as (1) Appellant's interpretation of the term "children" was legally correct; and (2) nothing in the plan or ERISA required Appellant to incorporate the concept of equitable adoption into the plan definition of "children." View "Herring v. Campbell" on Justia Law

When William and Adele divorced in 2008, she waived her right to proceeds from his 401(k) plan, governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001-1461. He did not replace her as named beneficiary before he died intestate, nine months later. Because of a 2009 Supreme Court case, Kennedy v. Plan Administrator, 555 U.S. 285, the plan was obligated to pay the proceeds to Adele in accordance with plan documents regardless of the waiver. The district court held that estate could not attempt to recover the funds by bringing suit directly against Adele to enforce her waiver. The Third circuit reversed in part. Permitting suits against beneficiaries after benefits have been paid does not implicate any concern of expeditious payment or undermine any core objective of ERISA. View "Estate of Kensinger v. URL Pharma Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)-(3), seeking to recover funds that were erroneously removed from his pension fund account and credited to that of his former wife. The district court entered judgment against the Plan, including the principal amount, accumulated earnings, and pre-judgment interest. On appeal, the Plan argued that enforcement of the judgment was prohibited by the terms of the pension agreement, ERISA's anti-alienation provision, and other provisions of federal and state law. The Plan also argued that the district court's award of accumulated earnings was inconsistent with the court's decision in Dobson v. Hartford Financial Services Group. The court considered all the Plan's arguments and found that none of them warranted reversal of the district court's judgment that the Plan must pay plaintiff what he was due, whether or not it could succeed in recovering the funds that it, through no fault of plaintiff's, erroneously paid to his former wife. View "Milgrim v. Orthopedic Assoc. Defined Contribution Pension Plan" on Justia Law

Appellant, the named beneficiary of an accident benefits plan that her husband obtained through his employer, brought suit under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., alleging that the plan administrator, Metropolitan Life Insurance (Metlife), abused its discretion in determining that her husband was intoxicated at the time of the accident and denying coverage. At issue was whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to Metlife because Metlife's interpretation of the relevant policies was arbitrary and capricious and not supported by substantial evidence. The court held that Metlife did not abuse its discretion as plan administrator when it denied benefits based on the general exclusion for intoxication that appeared in the certificate of insurance. The court also held that the toxicology report, which concluded that the husband's blood alcohol level was above the state limit, constituted evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion and therefore, satisfied the substantial evidence standard. The court also held that because it agreed with the district court's conclusion that the denial of benefits was justified in light of the intoxication conclusion, it need not address Metlife's assertion that the husband's death was not accidental because it was reasonably foreseeable or, alternatively, the result of intentional self-inflicted injury. Accordingly, summary judgment was affirmed. View "River v. Edward D. Jones Co., et al." on Justia Law

Appellants filed suit against nine pilots and their spouses asserting claims for equitable relief under 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3) of ERISA where appellants alleged that the pilots and their spouses obtained "sham" divorces for the purpose of obtaining lump sum pension distributions from the Continental Pilots Retirement Plan. At issue was whether ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1056(d)(1), allowed a retirement plan administrator to seek restitution of benefits that were paid to a plan participant's ex-spouse pursuant to a domestic relations order such as a divorce decree, if the administrator subsequently determined that the domestic relations order was based on a "sham" divorce. The court agreed with the district court's holding that subsection 1056(d)(3)(D)(i) did not authorize an administrator to consider or investigate the subjective intentions or good faith underlying a divorce. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of appellants' claims. View "Brown, et al v. Continental Airlines, Inc., et al." on Justia Law