Please read our Copyright Notice and Disclaimers before you use this resource.
Carey v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 363 Pension Plan, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 32699 (2nd Cir. December 16, 1999).- Citing cases from other circuits, this court found that a claim for pensions benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) accrues upon a clear repudiation by a plan that is known, or should be known, to the plaintiff regardless of whether the plaintiff has filed a formal application for benefits. This court found no merit in Carey’s policy arguments, nor his assertion that under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), an action for present benefits is treated differently for accrual purposes than a declaratory judgment action with respect to future benefits. See detailed analysis.
Cothran v. Reliance Standard Insur. Co., 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 31588 (4th Cir. December 3, 1999) (unpublished)-This court upheld a summary judgment in favor of Millie Cothran, whose long-term disability payments from Reliance Standard were improperly terminated. In its review of Cothran's claim, the district court properly applied a "modified abuse of discretion" standard of review since Reliance Standard, as Plan Administrator, was subject to a conflict of interest in its handling of Cothran's claim. "This conflict existed because Reliance Standard acted in a fiduciary capacity as Plan Administrator, and was also the insurer whose financial interest was at stake under the Policy." See detailed analysis.
Rhoades v. Casey, 196 F.3d 592 (5th Cir. 1999)-This court found that Casey’s forfeiture of his ESOP benefits did not violate the anti-alienation provision of ERISA, since there exists an exception for a knowing and voluntary waiver of retirement benefits executed to reach a settlement. See detailed analysis.
Voyk v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 198 F.3d 599 (6th Cir. 1999) 1999 FED App. 0398P (6th Cir.)-Voyk, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated retired officers and employees of defendant Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers ("BLE"), sued the union claiming that it unlawfully failed to pay promised retiree health benefits. Voyk’s allegations arose out of an decision by the Cooperating Railway Labor Organizations ("CRLO"), of which BLE was a part. The member unions voted to amend their Plan document so that participants would have to contribute individually at a rate determined by their union to be eligible for health benefits. BLE elected to require each of its retirees and their dependents to contribute $100 per month per covered person to maintain their health insurance coverage.This court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the BLE.
The court noted that the Plan reserved, at all pertinent times, the right "to terminate, suspend, withdraw, amend or modify the Plan in whole or in part at any time." Plaintiff’s evidence of letters and oral communications promising lifetime coverage free of charge were not binding. Citing Sprague v. General Motors, 133 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 1998) (1998 FED App. 0004P (6th Cir.) this court stated that oral communications and assurances of lifetime coverage do not alter the terms of the written plan, nor can they be applied to an equitable estoppel defense where the plan terms are unambiguous. See detailed analysis.
Torello v. UNUM Life Insur. Co., 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 32228 (6th Cir. December 3, 1999) (unpublished). This court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of UNUM Life and G&J Pepsi-Cola Bottlers, Inc. UNUM denied Torello’s application for long-term disability benefits as untimely. The plan required Torello to report a claim within 30 days of the disability.
This court reviewed de novo (declining review under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard on the basis that requiring a claimant to submit proof of disability is not sufficient to reflect a clear grant of discretion). This court denied several of Torello’s challenges to the time limits. See detailed analysis.
Rauh Rubber, Inc. v. Berkshire Life Insur. Co., 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 34043 (6th Cir. December 16, 1999) (unpublished).-This Court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Berkshire Life Insurance Company. Rauh Rubber brought a claim of punitive damages for an alleged bad faith denial. This court acknowledged, but did not rely on, ERISA cases which have upheld the denial of accidental death benefits where plan participants died from driving while intoxicated. This court upheld the district court’s conclusion that the initial denial was reasonably supported by Berkshire's belief that Mr. Rauh's death resulted not from an accident but from his own intoxication. As such, the claim arguably fell outside the terms of the policy, and under Ohio law, the burden to establish bad faith was on the insured. See detailed analysis.
Kuretich v. Metropolitan Life Insur. Co., 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 34038 (6th Cir. December 17, 1999) (unpublished).- This court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Kuretich’s breach of contract action against Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. ("MetLife") since ERISA preempted the claim. See detailed analysis.
Central Laborers' Pension, Welfare and Annuity Funds v. Griffee, 198 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 1999)-This court found that "when a suit is brought by a fiduciary, his beneficiary, while not a named party, is the real party in interest and it would be curious, to say the least, to have service performed by a real party in interest." Service was improper. See detailed analysis.
Algren v. Titan Tire, 197 F.3d 915 (8th Cir. 1999)-Terminated employees did not have a right to retiree health benefits as those benefits only vested at retirement. See detailed analysis.
Bledsoe v. Hartford Life and Accident Insur. Co., 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 31952 (8th Cir. Dec. 6, 1999) (unpublished)-District court correctly determined case that plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies barred case. See detailed analysis.
Horvath v. California Federal Bank, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 32174 (9th Cir. Dec. 8, 1999) (unpublished)-Forcing the use of the PBGC Rate under the new option would violate the Retirement Protection Act of 1994 (the "RPA"), enacted as part of GATT. The other remedy—applying the GATT rate to both—would be of no additional benefit to Horvath. Therefore, he had no basis for a claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). See detailed analysis.
Cement Masons Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California v. Stone, 197 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 1999)-Injunctive and "other appropriate equitable relief" is available under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). "Such relief includes restitution [here meaning 'ill-gotten gains'], but it does not include contract damages, Id., or reimbursement pursuant to contract." FMC Med. Plan v. Owens, 122 F.3d 1258 (9th Cir. 1997). This court observed that this case did not involve an ERISA plan granting the insurer rights of subrogation. Rather the Plan’s claim was for contractual reimbursements. See detailed analysis.
Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 1999)-Bowles and the plans appealed from the denial of a motion for leave to amend the complaint to reflect that Reade is the trustee of the Robert B. Reade Trust in this action for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. Appellants also appealed from the final judgment dismissing this action following the order granting summary judgment in favor of Ms. Reade.
This court vacated the order granting summary judgment in favor of Ms. Reade on the grounds that the sole basis for the judgment was the mistake in accurately pleading her representative capacity. Since she had notice that, but for the mistaken identification, she would be a defendant in the action, this court found that the district court abused its discretion in denying the plans' motion to amend the complaint to name properly Ms. Reade’s capacity. See detailed analysis.
Haegele v. Fireman’s Fund Insur. Co., 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 33660 (9th Cir. Dec. 17, 1999) (unpublished)-This court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment against Haegele on his federal and state law claims of age discrimination and retaliation, disability discrimination, veteran's status discrimination, and denial of ERISA benefits. Because Haegele was not entitled to severance benefits if his termination resulted from his misconduct, summary judgment on his ERISA claim was also appropriate. See detailed analysis.
Katz v. Comprehensive Group Insur., 197 F.3d 1084 (11th Cir. 1999)-This court affirmed the district court’s grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment, denying a widow’s claim for an additional $202,000 in life insurance benefits. See detailed analysis.
