Justia ERISA Opinion Summaries

In 2007, Durand filed an Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001–1461 (ERISA) class action against her former employer and the pension plan it sponsors, challenging the projection rate used by the Plan to calculate the lump-sum payment Durand elected to receive after ending her employment at the Company in 2003. The Plan then used a 401(k)-style investment menu to determine the interest earned by members’ hypothetical accounts. Durand alleged that it impermissibly used the 30-year Treasury bond rate instead of the projected rate of return on her investment selections in the “whipsaw” calculation required under pre-2006 law. The Sixth CIrcuit reversed dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Defendants then answered the complaint and raised defenses, including that the claims of putative class members “who received lump-sum distributions after December 31, 2003” were barred due to an amendment to the Plan that took effect after that date. Plaintiffs argued that the 2004 Amendment was an illegal reduction or “cutback” in benefits. The Sixth Circuit affirmed that the “cutback” claims were time-barred and did not relate back to the “whipsaw” claim asserted in the original class complaint. View "Durand v. Hanover Ins. Group, Inc." on Justia Law

UEBT is a healthcare employee benefits trust governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001, and pays healthcare providers directly from its own funds for the services provided to enrollees in its health plans. UEBT contracted with a “network vendor,” Blue Shield, to obtain access to Blue Shield’s provider network at the rates Blue Shield had separately negotiated, and certain administrative services. One of Blue Shield’s preexisting provider contracts was with Sutter, a group of health care providers in Northern California. UEBT sued Sutter, on behalf of a putative class of all California self-funded payors, alleging that Sutter’s contracts with network vendors, such as Blue Shield, contain anticompetitive terms that insulate Sutter from competition and drive up the cost of healthcare. UEBT sought damages, restitution, and injunctive relief under the Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof. Code 16720) and California’s unfair competition law (section 17200). Sutter moved to compel arbitration, relying on an arbitration clause in the provider contract signed by Sutter and Blue Shield. The trial court denied Sutter’s motion, concluding that UEBT was not bound to arbitrate its claims pursuant to an agreement it had not signed or even seen. The court of appeal affirmed. View "UFCW & Employers Benefit Trust v. Sutter Health" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the executrix of her husband's estate, along with her husband's former business, Federal City, filed suit against Life Investors for conversion and tortious interference with a contract. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's dismissal of the complaint. The court concluded that this action is not barred by claim preclusion because the claims brought are not based upon the same cause of action as the prior suit. In this case, plaintiffs allege claims for conversion and tortious interference with contract against Life Investors because Life Investors removed over $400,000 from certain accounts to cover expenses above the alleged debt plaintiffs owed Life Investors. Life Investors removed these funds after the decision in the Maryland district court. The Maryland court never determined that plaintiffs lacked any interest in the assets in the accounts. Instead, it decided that plaintiffs were time-barred from bringing claims from a 2000 request for withdrawal of the assets and that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., claims were either time-barred or failed to allege a violation of ERISA law. Similarly, the claim is not barred by issue preclusion. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Corrado v. Life Investors Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Life Investors filed suit against defendants, alleging breach of a settlement agreement that required defendants to repay advances of monies defendants received from Life Investors. On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to Life Investors. The court affirmed, concluding that defendants' laches defense failed because they cannot show unreasonable delay on the part of Life Investors in bringing this suit nor can defendants show that they were prejudiced; even if the alleged inconsistencies were material, defendants chose not to investigate further and thus the determination that they ratified the Settlement Agreement was correct; the district court correctly granted summary judgment on the question of ratification of the Settlement Agreement after certifying that question to the Iowa Supreme Court and receiving its answer; and defendants' attempt to argue an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., violation as a defense in this action is barred as a matter of issue preclusion. View "Life Investors Ins. Co. v. Federal City Region" on Justia Law

Waskiewicsz suffers from type-1 diabetes, major depression, and gender identity disorder She worked as a product design engineer for Ford from 1990 until October, 2010, when she suffered “a debilitating emotional breakdown.” In December, after her father found her barricaded in her house, she sought long-term disability benefits under Ford’s Plan, governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001. Under the plan: An Active Employee whose employment is terminated . . . shall cease to be eligible for Benefits as of the earlier of: (a) the date the Employee has been notified; or (b) the day prior to the date of such termination (in the case of retroactive terminations) . .... An employee is required to notify the Claim Processor ... if the employee is absent for more than five (5) consecutive Workdays.” She did not give notice within the five-day period and was, apparently, terminated in the interim. UniCare concluded that she did not qualify for benefits. The Sixth Circuit reversed. On remand, Waskiewicz must be given the opportunity to show that her alleged failure to comply with the requirements of the Plan was due to the very disability for which she seeks benefits. View "Waskiewicz v. UniCare Life & Health Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The insurer operates a preferred-provider system that offers patients better benefits, or lower co-payments, for patronizing medical providers who have agreed with the insurer to accept lower reimbursements (per procedure) in exchange for a better flow of business. The chiropractor plaintiffs signed such “participating provider” or “network” agreements. Providers bill the insurer directly regardless of whether a patient obtained coverage as part of an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) welfare-benefit plan or through some other means, such as an affinity-group policy or an insurance exchange under the Affordable Care Act. Chiropractors sued, contending that, when determining how much to pay for services rendered to patients, the insurer failed to use the procedures required by ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1133. The district court concluded that plaintiffs are beneficiaries under ERISA and awarded damages and injunctions requiring the insurer to follow section 1133 and Department of Labor regulations. The Seventh Circuit reversed, noting that plaintiffs concede that they are not participants under the ERISA definition and that a network contract between a medical provider and an insurer does not make that provider a “beneficiary” under ERISA. View "Pa. Chiropractic Ass'n v. Independence Hosp. Indem., Inc." on Justia Law

Until 2011, Woodbridge, the largest wholesale grocery distributor by revenue in the U.S., contributed to the fund pursuant to collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001, Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA), 29 U.S.C. 1381-1461, employers withdrawing from multi-employer pension plans must pay the share of the fund’s total unfunded vested benefits allocable to them. Woodbridge owes $189,606,875 and elected to satisfy its “withdrawal liability” through annual payments instead of a lump sum. Under the MPPAA, annual payments must be based on “the highest contribution rate at which the employer had an obligation to contribute under the plan.” The plan’s board claimed the single highest rate from the multiple contribution rates established in the three CBAs . Woodbridge argued that it was responsible only for a weighted average of those contribution rates. The board also claimed that Woodbridge’s payments should include a 10 % surcharge it had been paying under the 2006 Pension Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. 1085. The Third Circuit affirmed that the annual withdrawal liability payment should be based on the single highest contribution rate, but should not include the surcharge. The “highest contribution” rate means the single highest contribution rate established under any of the CBAs. View "Bd. of Trs. of the IBT Local 863 Pension Fund v. C&S Wholesale Grocers Inc" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, the district court held that Michael's was not liable as a successor employer by weighing continuity of the workforce as the most important factor. At issue was: (1) whether a successor employer, both generally and in the construction industry in particular, can be subject to withdrawal liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA), 29 U.S.C. 1381–1453, amendments to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.; and (2) if so, what factors are most relevant to determining whether a construction industry employer is a successor for purposes of imposing MPPAA withdrawal liability. The court concluded that a construction industry successor employer can be subject to MPPAA withdrawal liability, so long as the successor took over the business with notice of the liability; that the most important factor in assessing whether an employer is a successor for purposes of imposing MPPAA withdrawal liability is whether there is substantial continuity in the business operations between the predecessor and the successor, as determined in large part by whether the new employer has taken over the economically critical bulk of the prior employer’s customer base; and, in this case, the district court erred in weighing continuity of the workforce as the most important factor and applying an incorrect test to determine whether there was continuity of the workforce. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Resilient Floor Covering Pension Trust Fund Bd. of Trs. v. Michael's Floor Covering" on Justia Law

NJBSC is a Bergen County neurosurgical medical practice. NJBSC treated three patients who were members of health-care plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001, and administered by Aetna. Before surgery, each patient executed an assignment to NJBSC. Following treatment, Aetna allegedly underpaid or refused to pay claims for each of the patients. NJBSC filed suit The district court dismissed NJBSC’s complaint, holding that the assigned rights to payment did not give NJBSC standing to sue under ERISA. The Third Circuit reversed, holding that a patient’s explicit assignment of payment of insurance benefits to her healthcare provider, without direct reference to the right to file suit, is sufficient to give the provider standing to sue for those benefits under ERISA. View "N. Jersey Brain & Spine Ctr., v. Aetna Inc" on Justia Law

After Employee ended his employment with Employer he applied for and received state unemployment benefits from the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) and supplemental unemployment benefits (SUB) through a plan offered by Employer. DEED determined that the SUB plan payments counted as “wages” under Minn. Stat. 268.035(29)(A) and determined that Employee had been overpaid state unemployment benefits. An unemployment law judge affirmed. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Employee was entitled to keep the state unemployment benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the SUB plan payments Employee received were not “wages” for purposes of his eligibility for state unemployment benefits, and therefore, Employee was not overpaid state unemployment benefits. View "Engfer v. Gen. Dynamics Advanced Info. Sys., Inc." on Justia Law