Justia ERISA Opinion Summaries

When plaintiff, a 14-year employee, was terminated from his position he negotiated a severance package based, in part, on his belief that he would be receiving a pension in a certain amount from the company's pension plan. The administrator for the plan, who was also the company's human resources manager, miscalculated. After signing off on the severance agreement, plaintiff learned of the error and brought an estoppel claim against the plan. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the plan. Plaintiff did not present the extraordinary circumstances necessary for the court to entertain a claim for estoppel against an ERISA Plan and there was no evidence of intentional misrepresentation or detrimental reliance. View "Pearson v. Voith Paper Rolls Inc." on Justia Law

The company decided to voluntarily terminate its qualified plan under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001, but after going through initial statutory steps, realized that it would be too expensive and formally withdrew from the process. During the process, the company amended its plan to provide that if the plan terminated, employees could keep working at the company while still receiving the annuities the company purchased for them. The amendment was made in anticipation of the final step of the statutory termination process, which requires the purchase of private annuities for plan beneficiaries. Employees sued. The district court found that plaintiffs’ ability to receive an annuity while still working is not a protected right under ERISA or the plan's own terms, which protect beneficiaries from amendments that decrease "accrued benefits." The Seventh Circuit affirmed. ERISA only protects certain benefits, and those relevant here are all tied to benefits available at retirement. In any event, the ability to receive an annuity while still working was contingent on the plan terminating, which did not occur. View "Carter v. Pension Plan of A. Finkl and Sons Co." on Justia Law

The company previously gave retirees credit toward their share of health care costs, based on unused sick-leave. Union workers could take that sum in cash or put it toward the premium. Executives who quit before retirement, or decided not to participate in the plan, did not receive any other form of compensation for unused leave. It had value only as a credit toward retirement health-care costs. In 2008 the company amended the plan and stopped paying any part of retirees' health-care costs. Money for employees who could have taken their balances in cash is put in an account administered by the health-care plan. Retirees, including executives who never had an option to take balances in cash, plus one who had that option but elected to leave the money on deposit, filed suit under the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1081. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings to the company. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The company, which did not take anything out of the plan, but simply reduced the amount it would pay in, reserved the right to amend its health-care plan. It is a business decision, not a legal question, whether to use that authority to retirees’ detriment. View "Sullivan v. Cuna Mut. Ins. Soc'y" on Justia Law

After two years of contributing to a multiemployer pension plan established under a collective bargaining agreement, the company closed the covered facility, triggering withdrawal liability. The union notified the company of its liability under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1001, as amended by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980, 29 U.S.C. 1301-1461, and set a 20-year schedule requiring payment of $652 per month. The union sent another letter, months later, saying that it had miscalculated monthly payments, but not the underlying withdrawal liability, and advised the company to increase monthly payments to $978. The company timely paid the original amount, but refused to pay the revised sum. The company requested arbitration, but after a finding that it was not required to pay the higher amount in the interim, withdrew. The district court dismissed the union's suit based on the calculation. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded without reaching the statutory interpretation issue, based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. A plan may correct perceived errors in calculation and revise an assessment as long as the employer is not prejudiced. At that point the exhaustion provisions of the MPPAA apply to the revised assessment as they would to the original. View "Nat'l Shopmen Pension Fund v. DISA Indus., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff worked as a sales representative when she became disabled and sought long-term disability benefits under the company's ERISA plan (“the Plan”) after a series of back surgeries. In her suit under 29 U.S.C.1132(a)(1)(B) the district court held that she was ineligible for benefits after the first 24 months; the Seventh Circuit remanded. Having not heard from the Plan for almost five months, plaintiff again filed suit under ERISA, claiming that silence constituted a deemed denial of her benefit claim. A little over a month later, the Plan informed her that it would pay the benefits, moved to dismiss the case as moot. The district court denied the motion, issued a judgment against the Plan for the exact amount it had agreed to pay, and denied plaintiff's motion for fees. The Seventh Circuit vacated the grant of summary judgment on the benefit claim, which was moot, and affirmed denial of fees. The district court had jurisdiction over the fee claim, but the plaintiff did not adequately substantiate her request.View "Pakovich v. Verizon LTD Plan" on Justia Law

The company closed paper mills and eliminated a health-care subsidy for retirees. The union filed suit in Ohio under the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132. The company filed a declaratory judgment suit in Wisconsin; the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded. Although the suit does not seek equitable relief as described in Sect. 502 of ERISA, Sect. 2201 does authorize declaratory relief. The court further reasoned that the district court acknowledged its jurisdiction over the LMRA suit and that the union's suit came within the 502 grant of jurisdiction, so this mirror-image suit by the plan’s sponsor also is within federal subject-matter jurisdiction. In dismissing the Wisconsin litigation, the district judge assumed that the controversy would be resolved in Ohio. That is no longer true because the union mistakenly named a parent company that was not a party to the collective bargaining agreements; the case has been dismissed. View "NewPage Wis. Sys., Inc., v. United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg,. Energy Allied Indus. & Servs. Workers Int'l Union" on Justia Law

A 1998 amendment to the plan effectively penalized lump-sum distributees by voiding their future interest credits, in violation of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1054(c)(3). Participants who had received lump sum distributions filed suit in 2007. The district court held that the claims accrued when the plaintiffs received their distributions and that some claims were barred by the six-year state limitations period. The court ordered recalculation of the distributions for the other plaintiffs using a modified version of a method proposed by defendants. The Seventh Circuit reversed in part. The distributions were the final step of a clear repudiation of the participants’ entitlement to anything different and triggered the running of the limitations period; prior communications about the amendment were simply "hints." The plan fiduciaries were not entitled to deference with respect to the recalculation of benefits; the district court must determine how to calculate awards. View "Thompson v. Retirement Plan for SC Johnson" on Justia Law

A $15,000 insurance policy covering the decedent named his brother as beneficiary. The brother was killed in the same accident that killed the decedent. Although the insurer received notice that the decedent's mother (estate administrator) had assigned the policy to pay for the funeral, the company obtained an order from the state court and paid the benefit to decedent's children, applying a "facility-of-payment" clause, which provided: "if the beneficiary he or she named is not alive at the Employeeâs death, the payment will be made at Our option, to any one or more of the following: Your spouse; Your children; Your parents; Your brothers and sisters; or Your estate." The assignee (finance company) filed suit. The federal district court entered judgment in favor of the insurer. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, exercising jurisdiction under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1132. Insurance companies have broad discretion under facility-of-payment clauses and the insurer's decision was not arbitrary. The court declined to award attorney fees.

The plaintiff stopped working in November, 2005, due to a variety of ailments, and filed a disability claim in August, 2007. The claim was denied in September. The plaintiff's appeal, received in April, 2008, 11 days after the stated 180-day deadline, was denied. She filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132. A magistrate upheld the denial. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The plan has a clear deadline; the plaintiff was not denied meaningful access to review procedures and did not allege that pursuing administrative remedies would be futile. The court rejected a "substantial compliance" argument, noting that the plaintiff did not offer an explanation for the late filing. The Plan was not required to show prejudice as a result of the delay to justify rejecting the claim. Letters sent by the plaintiff could not reasonably be construed as notice of appeal. The Plan has procedures to minimize conflicts of interest and its refusal to consider the appeal was not arbitrary.

A recent retiree (employee) unsuccessfully tried to enroll her adult dependent child in the medical plan. The district court found the plan administrator's decision to be in violation of ERISA and imposed penalties. The Seventh Circuit vacated in part and remanded to allow the plan administrator to make a decision under the correct contract language. The denial was incorrectly based on a version of the plan in effect at the time of application, rather than that in effect when the employee's ability to comply with a condition precedent to enrollment expired, but the language of the earlier plan was ambiguous and the evidence of the employee's compliance was unclear. The court affirmed an award of a $3,780 for failure to timely comply with the employee's first request for documents, but reversed a penalty of $11,440 for a second request, calling for documents that were not essential to the claim. The court remanded an award of attorney fees, stating outcome was "some success on the merits" for the employee but that the plan's position was not without merit.