Justia ERISA Opinion Summaries

In 1988, Brake began working at Hutchinson. She was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) in 2000, but continued to work. Brake purchased disability insurance through Hutchinson’s plan in 1988. Hutchinson, as the plan administrator, ceded discretionary authority to Hartford to construe the plan and make eligibility determinations. In 2007, Brake purchased "buy-up" coverage that excluded a disability if medical treatment for that condition was rendered within 12 months prior to the effective date. The limitation ended after a year without a claim: if Brake was treated for MS between April 1, 2006, and April 1, 2007, and then became disabled as a result of MS before April 1, 2008, the exclusion would limit her benefits to core plan coverage. Brake began experiencing problems with her MS in 2007 and received benefits from a separate short-term disability plan. On March 25, 2008, she stopped working at Hutchinson. In May, she applied for LTD benefits, stating her onset of disability as July 27, 2007. Hartford informed her that her LTD benefits were approved, but not at the buy-up plan rate. Brake claimed that doctor visits during the 12 months were for a pap smear and a yearly routine MRI. Hartford cited the same records which indicated that Brake was increasingly less able to manage her MS conditions during the 12 months before her purchase of buy-up coverage. In Brake’s suit under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1001, the district court found that Hartford did not abuse its discretion. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Hartford. View "Brake v. Hutchinson Tech., Inc.," on Justia Law

The class action suit, filed about 19 years ago, claimed that a defined‐contribution ERISA pension plan in which the employer matched contributions made by its employees was partially terminated, requiring vesting. After a previous remand, the district judge granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant and awarded $64,000 in costs. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. When a pension plan is terminated, the rights of the participants in the plan vest in full; none of the money contributed by the employer to the individual employees’ retirement accounts is returned to the employer. Full vesting is required in the case of partial as well as total terminations, 26 U.S.C. 411(d)(3)(A). The district judge had to decide whether the series of reductions in the number of plan participants should be considered a single partial termination. The judge determined that there was no plan; decisions to sell particular subsidiaries were made sequentially, based on economic conditions in the particular market in which each operated. View "Matz v. Household Int'l Tax Reduction Inv. Plan" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, individual CIGNA Plan participants, filed suit on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, alleging that CIGNA defendants made misleading communications in regards to the terms of the Plan. Subsequently, on remand, the court concluded that the district court acted within the scope of its discretion in denying CIGNA's motion to decertify the plaintiff class; the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the elements of reformation have been satisfied and that the Plan should be reformed to adhere to representations made by the plan administrator; and, in this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting relief to A+B benefits rather than ordering a return to the terms of CIGNA's original retirement plan. View "Amara v. CIGNA Corp." 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

Ibson and her family were insured by UHS through a policy available to her to as a member of her law firm. Due to an error, UHS began informing Ibson’s medical providers that Ibson and her family no longer had insurance coverage. Although UHS eventually paid the claims it should have paid all along, Ibson sued, raising state law claims of breach of contract, negligence, and bad faith, and seeking punitive damages. UHS responded that Ibson’s claims were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and barred by the policy’s three-year contractual limitations period. The district court agreed and entered summary. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded, agreeing that Ibson’s state law claims are preempted under ERISA, but rejecting entry of summary judgment on the basis of the three-year contractual limitations period. View "Ibson v. United Healthcare Servs., Inc." 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

Plaintiff filed a class action suit against his former employer, Harman, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., alleging that Harman breached its fiduciary duties by making false and misleading statements to investment firms. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's conversion of defendants' motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)(d) and grant of summary judgment to defendants without giving plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to present evidence. The court did not reach the merits of the appeal, concluding that if the district court violated Rule 12(d), the error would be harmless in this case where discovery would be futile. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Russell v. Harman Int'l Indus." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Wells Fargo under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132, alleging that the company improperly terminated her short-term disability benefits while she was undergoing a series of treatments for thyroid disease. The district court found insufficient evidence of disability under the Plan to conclude that Wells Fargo abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's claim. The court held that Wells Fargo failed to meet its statutory and Plan obligations to plaintiff as a beneficiary. By failing to contact plaintiff's psychologist when it was on notice that plaintiff was seeking treatment for mental health conditions and when it had his contact information, as well as properly signed release forms from plaintiff, the plan administrator chose to remain willfully blind to readily available information that may well have confirmed plaintiff's theory of disability. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with directions to return the case to Wells Fargo for a full and fair review of plaintiff's claims. View "Harrison v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against MetLife, the administrator of a long-term disability insurance plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., seeking to recover disability benefits. The court concluded that the six-year limitations period began to run on plaintiff's ERISA claim when the cause of action accrues; plaintiff's ERISA complaint in 2012 for benefits from May 1, 1997 forward is time-barred; the court rejected plaintiff's argument that his submission of post-1997 documentation is a new claim for benefits; and MetLife did not waive any defense based on the statute of limitations by failing to specify untimeliness as a basis for denying the claim after its courtesy review. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment. View "Witt v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al." on Justia Law

This case arose from injuries suffered by several students during scholastic athletic activities. The students were insured by Central States, an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., employee welfare benefit plan that provides health insurance to participating Teamsters and their dependents. The students were also directly insured by separate accident policies written by Gerber. Central States subsequently filed suit against Gerber, alleging various claims for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief pursuant to federal common law and ERISA section 502(a)(3). The court held that although Central States might well be left without an appropriate remedy as a result of this decision, and that in the future its beneficiaries may be put in the unfortunate position of having to sue their insurance companies to receive benefits to which they are indisputably entitled, the claims raised by Central States are legal, not equitable, and therefore may not be brought under section 502(a)(3). Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of Gerber's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). View "Cent. States, Se. & Sw Areas Health & Welfare Fund v. Gerber Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law