Justia ERISA Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, the former State director of United Public Workers, AFSCME Local 646, FL-CIO (UPW) and a former administrator of UPW’s Mutual Aid Fund trust (MAF), was held liable by a federal district court for negligently making loans under ERISA and thus breaching his fiduciary duties to the MAF. The court entered judgment against Petitioner in the amount of $850,000. Petitioner filed a complaint in the circuit court requesting that UPW indemnify him for the $850,000 on the grounds that his liability to the MAF arose from actions he took solely in his capacity as agent for UPW and/or that UPW ratified his actions. The circuit court granted summary judgment for UPW. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed, concluding that because Petitioner was responsible for his own conduct, he was not entitled to be indemnified for his negligent acts as a matter of law. Petitioner requested certiorari, claiming that the ICA erred in concluding that his negligence claim defeated his indemnification claim as a matter of law. The Supreme Court denied certiorari without reaching this issue, holding that ERISA preemption, not Petitioner’s negligence, defeated Petitioner’s state indemnity claims against UPW as a matter of law. View "Rodrigues v. United Public Workers, AFSCME Local 646" on Justia Law

Nine multi-employer pension and welfare fringe benefit trust funds sued G&W Construction and its president, under the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185(a), and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1145, to recover delinquent fringe-benefit payments under a contract between G&W and the Union. The defendants raised affirmative defenses of laches, estoppel, and waiver, alleging that the Union led G&W to believe that fringe benefit payments were due only for union members and that G&W relied upon the acts and omissions of the Union and the funds by bidding and accepting work on the reasonable understanding that Union wages and benefits did not apply to non-members. The Funds moved to strike the affirmative defenses, arguing that ERISA bars equitable defenses. The district court denied the motion to strike. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part. The district court should have granted the motion to strike the defenses of laches and equitable estoppel; the court declined to consider the district court’s ruling on the waiver defense. View "Operating Eng'rs Local 324 v. G & W Constr. Co." on Justia Law

Appellant was eligible for disability benefits through an employee welfare benefit plan underwritten by Aetna Life Insurance Company. Appellant successfully applied for long-term disability (LTD) benefits under his plan in 2009. Later that year, Appellant’s LTD benefits were terminated. Appellant brought this suit against Aetna under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 alleging wrongful termination of benefits. The federal district court granted summary judgment for Aetna on the benefits-termination claim but applied a $5,000 penalty against Aetna for its failure to produce all relevant plan documents within the statutorily prescribed time. The First Circuit (1) vacated summary judgment with respect to the termination of disability benefits and remanded the issue for further consideration by the claims administrator, holding that Aetna’s decision to terminate Appellant’s LTD benefits was not a reasoned determination; and (2) affirmed the district court’s imposition of a $5,000 penalty for the belated production of a plan document, holding that the amount of the penalty imposed was within the district court’s discretion. View "McDonough v. Aetna Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Home health care plaintiffs sought to prevent the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, from enforcing the Wage Parity Law, which sets the minimum amount of total compensation that employers must pay home care aides in order to receive Medicaid reimbursements for reimbursable care provided in New York City and Westchester, Suffolk, and Nassau Counties, N.Y. Pub. Health Law 3614‐c. Plaintiffs claim the Law was either preempted by the National Labor Relations 8 Act, 29 U.S.C. 151, or the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001, or was unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court conclusion that the state law, except for one severable provision subdivision that singles out Taft‐Hartley plans for special treatment, is neither preempted nor unconstitutional. View "Concerned Home Care Providers, Inc. v. Cuomo" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-appellants represent a class of retirees formerly employed by Sprint-Nextel Corporation, Embarq Corporation (or a predecessor and/or subsidiary company of either Embarq or Sprint). Plaintiffs sued after Defendants altered or eliminated health and life insurance benefits for retirees. Plaintiffs asserted Defendants: (1) violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by breaching their contractual obligation to provide vested health and life insurance benefits; (2) breached their fiduciary duty by, inter alia, misrepresenting the terms of multiple welfare benefit plans; and (3) violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and applicable state laws by reducing or eliminating the same benefits. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the breach of fiduciary duty claims, the ADEA claims, the state-law age discrimination claims, and some of the contractual vesting claims. The district court granted Defendants’ motions in part and Plaintiffs obtained a Rule 54(b) certification. The Tenth Circuit concluded Defendants did not contractually agree to provide Plaintiffs with lifetime health or life insurance benefits and thus affirmed in part the grant of summary judgment as to the contractual vesting claims. To the extent the district court granted summary judgment against class members whose contractual vesting claims arise, in whole or in part, from summary plan descriptions (other than those identified in Defendants’ motion), the Court reversed the grant of summary judgment against those class members. The Court reversed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty claims brought pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3) and reversed the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ remaining breach of fiduciary duty claims to the extent those claims were premised on a fraud theory. Finally, because Defendants’ decision to reduce or terminate the group life insurance benefit was based on a reasonable factor other than age, their actions did not violate the ADEA, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on those claims. View "Fulghum v. Embarq Corporation" on Justia Law

M&G purchased the Point Pleasant Polyester Plant in 2000 and entered a collective bargaining agreement and a related Pension, Insurance, and Service Award Agreement with the union, providing that certain retirees, surviving spouses, and dependents, would “receive a full Company contribution towards the cost of [health care] benefits”; that such benefits would be provided “for the duration of [the] Agreement”; and that the Agreement would be subject to renegotiation in three years. After the expiration, M&G announced that it would require retirees to contribute to the cost of their health care benefits. Retirees sued, alleging that the 2000 Agreement created a vested right to lifetime contribution-free health care benefits. On remand, the district court ruled in favor of the retirees; the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded, noting that welfare benefits plans are exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1051(1), 1053, 1081(a)(2), 1083, and applying ordinary principles of contract law. The Court stated that Sixth Circuit precedent distorts ordinary principles of contract law, which attempt to ascertain the intention of the parties, “by placing a thumb on the scale in favor of vested retiree benefits in all collective-bargaining agreements.” The Sixth Circuit did not consider the rules that courts should not construe ambiguous writings to create lifetime promises and that “contractual obligations will cease, in the ordinary course, upon termination of the bargaining agreement.” View "M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett" on Justia Law

In 1997, Appellant began working for Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR). After Appellant retired in 2009, BPPR made a final calculation of Appellant’s pension, which yielded monthly payments significantly lower than earlier estimates had suggested. Seeking the higher amount he had expected, Appellant brought claims under ERISA, a theory of estoppel, and Puerto Rico contract law. The district court (1) dismissed the ERISA and contract claims, concluding that Appellant failed to state a claim under ERISA and that ERISA preempted the commonwealth claims; and (2) granted summary judgment against Appellant on the estoppel claim, concluding that the unambiguous terms of the benefits plan precluded a claim for estoppel. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Appellant could not recover under ERISA because he could not be awarded relief under the terms of BPPR’s retirement plan; (2) the district court properly held that Appellant’s commonwealth claims “relate to” the ERISA-regulated plan and, accordingly, they were preempted; and (3) because Appellant did not show any ambiguity in the plan, his equitable estoppel claim necessarily failed. View "Guerra-Delgado v. Banco Popular de P.R." on Justia Law

Bibeau appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment and order directing it, as a related person to a disabled miner's former employer, to pay health insurance premiums, interest, and liquidated damages to the United Mine Workers of America 1992 Benefit Plan. The court concluded that Bibeau's laches claim was precluded under Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. because each premium installment gives rise to a separate cause of action for legal relief for which Congress has enacted a statute of limitations to govern timeliness. Further, under the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992, 26 U.S.C. 9701-9722, which incorporates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1451(a)(1), enforcement scheme, the district court did not err in awarding interest and liquidated damages. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Holland v. Bibeau Construction Co." on Justia Law

South Water Market and Local 703 of the Teamsters Union had a collective bargaining agreement that ran from 2004 through April 30, 2007. On September 12, 2007, they reached a new agreement. Abramson, Market’s bargaining representative, was supposed to draft the agreement. Murdoch, the Union’s president reminded Abramson repeatedly. By February 2008 Murdoch was worried that pension and welfare funds covering the employees would cut off participation or sue. In March, Abramson begged off, stating: “I’m having trouble with my notes.” On April 3 Murdoch sent Abramson a document with terms from Murdoch’s notes. Abramson did not reply, but Market began paying wages, and making pension and welfare contributions specified in Murdoch’s text. Murdoch also sent the document to the pension and welfare funds, which submitted bills calculated according to those terms. In July 2009 Castillo retired. He had been one of two workers in the highly-compensated “driver classification. The Murdoch document stated that Market would employ at least two drivers. After Castillo retired, it refused to provide more than one worker with the wages and benefits of the driver classification. The pension and welfare funds sued under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1145, seeking delinquent contributions for a second driver position. The district judge found that Market had not agreed to the terms. The Seventh Circuit reversed, reasoning that the Labor Management Relations Act makes a written agreement essential to participation in a pension or welfare plan, 29 U.S.C. 186(c)(5)(B), and Market does not contend that it wants to drop out of the plans or that it did withdraw Whatever reservations Abramson had were not conveyed to the funds until August 2009, much too late. View "Russ v. South Water Mkt, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff received benefits under her employer’s long-term disability benefit plan before the administrator for the long-term disability program determined she was no longer eligible for benefits. The administrator denied Plaintiff’s appeal as untimely for her failure to appeal within the benefit plan’s 180-day deadline. Plaintiff filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), claiming that her failure to comply with the 180-day deadline should have been excused because the benefit plan’s written instrument did not mention the deadline. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s benefits challenge as well as her two other ERISA claims for statutory penalties and for breach of fiduciary duty. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) dismissing Plaintiff’s benefits challenge, as Plaintiff failed to meet the deadline for appealing internally the decision to cut off her long-term disability benefits, and the benefit plan had expressly incorporated that deadline into the benefit plan’s written instrument; and (2) ruling that Plaintiff could not recover statutory penalties against the administrator or that she had waived her claim for breach of fiduciary duty. View "Tetreault v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law