Justia ERISA Opinion Summaries

Two former employees of a large utility holding company, participants in the company’s defined-benefit pension plan, challenged the way their monthly retirement benefits were calculated. Both men, after vesting in the plan, selected joint-and-survivor annuities that would provide payments to their spouses if they died first. The plaintiffs argued that the plan used outdated and unreasonable actuarial assumptions—some based on mortality tables from 1951 or earlier—to determine both the conversion of their accrued single-life annuity benefit to a joint-and-survivor annuity and to calculate charges for mandatory preretirement survivor annuity coverage. They alleged these practices resulted in significantly lower monthly benefits than they would have received if reasonable, current actuarial assumptions had been used.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, asserting violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). They claimed the plan failed to provide “actuarial equivalence” between single-life and joint-and-survivor annuities as required by ERISA, and that excessive reductions for preretirement survivor benefits amounted to unlawful forfeiture of accrued benefits. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that ERISA’s “actuarial equivalence” provision requires plans to use actuarial assumptions that a reasonable actuary would use at the time of benefit determination—not arbitrary or outdated assumptions. The court further held that employers cannot impose preretirement survivor benefit charges that exceed the actual, reasonably calculated cost of providing those benefits. Because the plaintiffs plausibly alleged violations of these standards, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Drummond v. Southern Company Services, Inc." on Justia Law

General Electric Company (GE) was assessed withdrawal liability by the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust (the Fund) under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA), which amended the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The Fund claimed that GE partially withdrew from the plan based on a 70% decline in contribution base units (CBUs) and the closure of a manufacturing facility in Chattanooga, resulting in liability assessments totaling over $227 million. GE disputed these assessments, arguing that it qualified for the “building and construction industry” (BCI) exception, which exempts certain employers from withdrawal liability if substantially all their covered employees perform work in the building and construction industry.An arbitrator considered the dispute and found in favor of GE, concluding that it met the requirements for the BCI exception. Both parties sought review in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, which affirmed the arbitrator’s decision. The district court determined that the statutory language was ambiguous regarding how to count employees for the purpose of the BCI exemption and adopted GE’s cumulative headcount method rather than the Fund’s preferred monthly headcount method.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and examined the ambiguity in the statutory language. The Court held that, of the two methods presented, the cumulative headcount approach advanced by GE was more consistent with the purpose and legislative intent of the statute, which was designed to accommodate the fluctuating nature of employment in the building and construction industry. The Court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that GE qualified for the building and construction industry exemption and was not liable for withdrawal assessments. View "General Electric Company v. Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust" on Justia Law

Four employers participating in an underfunded multiemployer pension plan withdrew from the plan in 2018. The plan’s trustees, using a newly adopted discount rate of 6.50% (previously 7.50%), calculated each employer’s withdrawal liability based on the plan’s unfunded vested benefits as of December 31, 2017. The change in the discount rate, adopted after the measurement date but before the calculation, significantly increased the amounts the employers owed. The employers challenged these assessments in arbitration, arguing that only actuarial assumptions in effect as of the measurement date could be used.Each arbitrator agreed with the employers, concluding that the plan should have used the discount rate in effect on the measurement date and requiring reassessment with the prior, higher rate. The fund’s trustees then sought review in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which disagreed with the arbitrators and held that it was permissible for the plan’s actuary to select assumptions after the measurement date. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed, reasoning that the statutory text did not require actuarial assumptions to be fixed as of the measurement date, and that assumptions could be adopted later as long as they reflected the best estimate as of that date. This decision created a conflict with a prior ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.The Supreme Court of the United States held that the relevant provisions of ERISA do not require the actuarial assumptions used to calculate withdrawal liability to be selected on or before the statutory measurement date. The Court affirmed the D.C. Circuit, concluding that, while the measurement date fixes the relevant factual data, the timing of selecting actuarial assumptions is not limited by statute. The Court also noted that the statute requires only that the assumptions be reasonable and reflect the actuary’s best estimate. View "M & K Employee Solutions, Inc. v. Trustees of IAM Nat. Pension" on Justia Law

Edward Beard, a participant in an employer-sponsored ERISA plan administered by Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, died after suffering a fall and subsequent subdural hematoma. Mr. Beard had stage IV pancreatic cancer and was taking a blood thinner due to an increased risk of blood clots. The fall occurred while he was rushing to the bathroom, and although an initial hospital visit revealed no issues, he was found unresponsive the following day and died after a second hospital visit revealed a large subdural hematoma. His wife, Tina Beard, filed a claim for accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) benefits, asserting that his death resulted from an accidental injury.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa reviewed the administrative record after Lincoln Life denied the claim. Lincoln Life concluded that Mr. Beard’s death was not solely the result of an accidental injury and invoked a plan exclusion since his blood thinner, used to treat his cancer-related clotting risk, contributed to his death. The district court granted judgment in favor of Lincoln Life, finding its interpretation of the plan reasonable and supported by substantial evidence, including medical reports indicating the blood thinner contributed to the fatal outcome.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the plan administrator’s decision for abuse of discretion, as the plan granted Lincoln Life discretionary authority to interpret its terms. The appellate court found that Lincoln Life’s interpretation of the plan terms and application of the exclusion were reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. The court held that Mrs. Beard failed to prove the loss resulted solely from an accident, and that Lincoln Life established the plan exclusion applied because the blood thinner contributed to Mr. Beard’s death. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Beard v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The plaintiff worked as a Project Director and participated in her employer’s long-term disability (LTD) plan, which was administered by Matrix Absence Management on behalf of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. After taking leave due to ongoing symptoms from long-haul COVID-19, the plaintiff applied for LTD benefits under the plan, which required proof of total disability. Matrix reviewed the medical evidence—including opinions from both treating and independent physicians—and denied her claim, concluding that as of her leave date, she was not totally disabled under the plan’s terms. The plaintiff appealed this denial, but Matrix upheld its decision after additional review.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio heard the plaintiff’s subsequent lawsuit against the Bank, Matrix, and the plan, asserting breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The district court denied the plaintiff’s requests for discovery beyond the administrative record and granted judgment on the administrative record in favor of the defendants. The court found that New York contract law, not ERISA, applied, and review was limited to whether Matrix’s decision was arbitrary, made in bad faith, or the result of fraud, given the plan’s broad delegation of discretionary authority to Matrix.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Sixth Circuit held that the district court correctly applied New York contract law and the arbitrary-and-capricious standard of review. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in denying discovery beyond the administrative record, as the plaintiff did not establish a colorable claim of conflict of interest or procedural defect. The Sixth Circuit concluded that Matrix’s denial had a reasonable basis in the administrative record and thus was not arbitrary or capricious. The judgment for the defendants was affirmed. View "Martin v. Fed. Rsrv. Bank of Cleveland" on Justia Law

A group of trustees managing an ERISA-regulated pension plan invested in six classes of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBSs), some issued as notes under indenture agreements and others as trust certificates. The trustees alleged that companies servicing the underlying mortgages mismanaged the loans, acted in self-interest, and failed to protect investors’ interests, in violation of their fiduciary duties under ERISA. The investments included three classes of notes and three classes of trust certificates, each backed by pools of residential mortgages.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York considered cross-motions for summary judgment on whether the underlying mortgages constituted plan assets under ERISA. The district court ruled that only the RMBSs themselves, not the mortgages behind them, were plan assets as defined by the Department of Labor’s regulation. Consequently, it granted summary judgment to all defendants, holding that the servicers did not owe ERISA fiduciary duties regarding the mortgages, and denied the trustees’ cross-motion.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment ruling de novo. The Second Circuit agreed that the notes issued under indenture agreements were not equity interests and did not confer plan asset status on the underlying mortgages. However, it found that the trust certificates were beneficial interests in the trusts and thus qualified as equity interests under the Department of Labor’s regulation. As a result, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment in part (regarding the notes), vacated in part (regarding the trust certificates), and remanded for further proceedings, including determination of whether the servicers acted as fiduciaries with respect to the trust certificates. View "Powell v. Ocwen Fin. Corp." on Justia Law

A financial advisory employee of a large securities firm participated in a compensation program called the WealthChoice Awards, which provided annual contingent cash awards to select high-performing advisors. To earn these awards, an advisor had to meet certain revenue thresholds and remain employed at the company for eight years after the award was granted. A notional, unfunded account tracked a benchmark investment, but no funds were set aside for the advisor during the vesting period. If the advisor left the company before vesting, the award was typically forfeited. After vesting, payment was mandatory and made promptly, usually while the advisor was still employed. The stated purpose of the program was to incentivize retention and productivity, not to provide retirement income.After voluntarily resigning and forfeiting unvested awards, the employee filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. He alleged that the WealthChoice Awards program was an “employee pension benefit plan” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and that it violated ERISA’s vesting and anti-forfeiture rules. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer, finding that the program was a bonus plan exempt from ERISA.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that the WealthChoice Awards program is a bonus payment plan and not an ERISA-covered pension benefit plan. The court reasoned that the program’s primary purpose was to enhance retention and productivity, eligibility was limited, the awards were not funded with deferred employee income, and payment was not systematically deferred until employment termination or retirement. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Milligan v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc." on Justia Law

A privately held investment fund with ERISA plan investors (the Fund) contained provisions in its governing agreements granting indemnification and advancement rights to its general partner, management company, and their principals, all of whom served as ERISA fiduciaries. After these fiduciaries were removed in late 2023, the Fund sued them in the Delaware Court of Chancery, alleging breach of contract and violations of the fund’s governing documents for withholding information and assets. The defendants counterclaimed, seeking advancement of their litigation expenses, as provided in the fund’s agreements.The Fund argued that advancement from ERISA assets was barred by section 1110 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which voids contractual provisions that relieve fiduciaries from responsibility or liability for their ERISA duties. The Court of Chancery held that, even though advancement was permitted under Delaware law, ERISA section 1110 rendered these advancement provisions void because they would improperly relieve fiduciaries from ERISA liability. The court also noted that a bar on advancement was appropriate since the fiduciaries had not shown an ability to repay advanced funds. The defendants appealed this ruling.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed the case. It held that advancement of litigation expenses for the defense of state-law claims, subject to a written undertaking to repay if indemnification is ultimately unwarranted, does not violate ERISA section 1110. The Court distinguished advancement from indemnification, emphasizing that advancement with an undertaking does not abrogate the fund’s right to recover from fiduciaries for ERISA breaches. The Court also found that neither statutory language nor relevant federal case law categorically barred such advancement under these circumstances. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Delaware reversed the Court of Chancery’s decision and remanded the matter. View "Invictus Global Management, LLC v. Invictus Special Situations Master I, L.P." on Justia Law

A man designated his sister as the beneficiary of his employer-issued life insurance policies, amounting to $150,000, with instructions that she distribute the proceeds to his three daughters. The man, suffering from declining health, relied on his sister to manage his finances, legal affairs, and healthcare decisions, creating a fiduciary relationship. After his death, the sister claimed the insurance proceeds for herself, contrary to the instructions. The daughters sought a constructive trust over the proceeds, claiming the sister was to hold the funds in trust for them, while the sister denied any fiduciary breach and asserted entitlement under the policy.The Allen Superior Court, after a bench trial, found no undue influence or fraud in the beneficiary designation but concluded that the sister breached her fiduciary duty by failing to distribute the proceeds as instructed. The court imposed a constructive trust in favor of the daughters, finding by clear and convincing evidence that the deceased intended for them to receive the insurance money. The sister appealed, arguing that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempted such state-law remedies and that the evidence did not meet the required standard. The Indiana Court of Appeals twice reversed the trial court, holding that ERISA preempted the remedy, but the Indiana Supreme Court remanded for application of the correct standard of proof without reaching the preemption issue.The Indiana Supreme Court, upon further review, held that the sister waived her ERISA preemption argument by not raising it in the trial court. The court affirmed the trial court's imposition of a constructive trust, concluding that the findings of a fiduciary relationship and breach of duty were supported by clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the daughters. View "Geels v. Flottemesch" on Justia Law

A Tennessee-based commercial bakery, which provides a self-funded health benefits plan governed by ERISA for its employees, structured its prescription drug benefits through a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) and created an in-house pharmacy offering lower copays to employees. Tennessee enacted laws targeting PBMs, requiring pharmacy network access for any willing provider and prohibiting cost-sharing incentives to steer participants to certain pharmacies, including those owned by the plan sponsor. The bakery and its PBM excluded a pharmacy from their network after an audit, and after the pharmacy filed administrative complaints under the new Tennessee law, the bakery sought declaratory and injunctive relief in federal court, claiming ERISA preempted these PBM-focused state laws.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee found that the bakery, as plan fiduciary, had standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge. The court concluded that the Tennessee PBM laws were preempted by ERISA because they required specific plan structures, governed central aspects of plan administration, and interfered with uniform national plan administration. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the bakery, permanently enjoining the Tennessee Commissioner from enforcing the PBM laws against the bakery’s health plan or its PBM.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court agreed with the district court’s analysis, holding that the challenged Tennessee PBM statutes have an impermissible connection with ERISA plans and are therefore preempted. The court found that the laws mandated network structure and cost-sharing provisions, interfering directly with ERISA plan administration. The Sixth Circuit also held that the ERISA saving clause did not preserve these laws from preemption due to the deemer clause’s application to self-funded plans. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "McKee Foods Corp. v. BFP Inc." on Justia Law