Mealey's ERISA
-
June 24, 2019
Cornell’s Appeal Of Class Certification In ERISA Suit Denied By 2nd Circuit
NEW YORK — A Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on June 19 denied a petition for permission to appeal class certification filed by Cornell University and others in a breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit (Cornell University, et al. v. Casey Cunningham, et al., No. 19-324, 2nd Cir.).
-
June 24, 2019
Plaintiffs Seek Preliminary Approval Of Settlement In ERISA Class Action Suit
BOSTON — Plaintiffs in a class action suit filed in Massachusetts federal court and alleging that a retirement plan was mismanaged urge the court in a June 14 motion to preliminarily approve a proposed $6.8 million settlement between the parties (Melissa Velazquez, et al. v. Massachusetts Financial Services Co., d/b/a MFS Investment Management, et al., No. 17-11249, D. Mass.).
-
June 20, 2019
Pennsylvania High Court Finds ERISA Does Not Preempt Property Settlement Agreement
HARRISBURG, Pa. — The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on June 18 found that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act does not preempt the terms of a property settlement agreement (PSA) filed as part of divorce proceedings that occurred before the man died in which the parties agreed to retain their respective pension benefits, explaining that PSAs are contracts under Pennsylvania law (In re: Estate of Michael J. Easterday, Nos. 15 MAP 2018, 16 MAP 2018, Pa. Sup., 2019 Pa. LEXIS 3305).
-
June 18, 2019
Insured Claims Financial Conflict Of Interest In Denial Of ERISA Benefits
BOSTON — An insured alleges in a June 14 complaint filed in a Massachusetts federal court that two insurers who are parties to an administration agreement and a reinsurance agreement engaged in a financial conflict of interest with regard to the denial of his long-term disability benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (Gary D. Powers v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 19-11335, D. Mass.).
-
June 18, 2019
Parties Square Off In New York Federal Court Over Mortality Tables
NEW YORK — In a June 13 memorandum of law in support of their motion to dismiss, the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Employee Benefits Committee and its individual members (defendants, collectively) assert that an amended complaint by two retirees fails to state a claim for relief because the use of an older mortality assumption “actually works to the benefit of many participants” (William Masten, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al., No. 18-11229, S.D. N.Y.).
-
June 17, 2019
Parity Act Allegations In ERISA Suit May Proceed, Judge Says
SALT LAKE CITY — Allegations that a health insurer covers subacute care in surgical settings but denies coverage in mental health settings provides a basis for a couple’s Parity Act claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a federal judge in Utah said June 14 (Timothy D., et al. v. Aetna Health and Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-753, D. Utah, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100388).
-
June 17, 2019
High Court Denies Review Of ERISA Disgorgement Ruling
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on June 17 denied review of a District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ ruling that 29 U.S. Code Section 1344(c) precludes pension plan participants from recovering from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC) any post-termination increase in the value of plan assets as a remedy for alleged breach of fiduciary duty (K. Wendell Lewis, et al. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., No. 18-1279, U.S. Sup.).
-
June 13, 2019
Disability Insurer Failed To Properly Address Claimant’s Mental Limitations, Panel Says
CHICAGO — The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 12 reversed a district court’s ruling in favor of a disability insurer after determining that the court and the insurer failed to properly address the disability claimant’s mental limitations and failed to properly classify her occupation under the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) (Shirley Lacko v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Co., No. 18-2155, 7th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17518).
-
June 12, 2019
Pre-Existing Condition Exclusion Does Not Apply To Bar LTD Benefits, Panel Says
NEW ORLEANS — A disability insurer’s denial of long-term disability (LTD) benefits was arbitrary and capricious because the claimant’s treatment for a symptom that later turned out to be caused by ovarian cancer cannot be considered the condition that caused her disability, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said June 11 in rejecting the insurer’s argument that the plan’s pre-existing condition exclusion barred the claim for LTD benefits (Marcia L. Smith v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-60753, 5th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17367).
-
June 12, 2019
5th Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of ERISA Suit Against SunEdison Directors, Committee
NEW YORK — The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 7 affirmed a lower federal court’s dismissal of a breach of fiduciary duty and loyalty lawsuit brought by SunEdison Inc.’s board of directors and investment by former employees who participated in the company’s defined contribution retirement plan (Eric O’Day, et al. v Ahmad Chatila, et al., Nos. 18-2621 and 18-2632, 2nd Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17199).
-
June 11, 2019
Judge Rejects Insurer’s ‘Ludicrous’ Surprise Bill Argument, Motion To Dismiss
NEW YORK — An insurer’s contention that an out-of-network provider never alleges that a stroke sufferer inquired into the availability of in-network emergency surgery is “ludicrous and offensive,” and the procedure clearly falls within the policy’s surprise bill exception to the anti-assignment provision, a federal judge in New York held May 15 in denying a motion to dismiss (Jeffrey Farkas, M.D. LLC v. Group Health Inc., No. 18-8535, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83096).
-
June 11, 2019
Settlement Preliminarily Approved In Prohibited Transactions Dispute
OAKLAND, Calif. — A California federal judge on June 3 granted a motion for preliminary approval of an almost $14 million class action settlement in a suit alleging that an employer and its retirement plan investment committee violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by charging 401(k) plan participants excessive fees and engaging in prohibited transactions (Marlon H. Cryer, et al. v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., No. 16-4265, c/w No. 17-6409, N.D. Calif.).
-
June 10, 2019
Preliminary Approval Of $14.5M Settlement Granted In Vanderbilt Retirement Dispute
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A Tennessee federal judge on May 30 granted a motion for preliminary approval of a $14.5 million settlement of a plan participants’ lawsuit accusing Vanderbilt University, the oversight committee and members of the committee of mismanaging the employee retirement plan in violation of the Employee Income Retirement Security Act (Loren L. Cassell, et al. v. Vanderbilt University, et al., No. 16-2086, M.D. Tenn.).
-
June 10, 2019
8th Circuit Denies Stay, Issues Mandate On Honeywell Vesting Decision
ST. LOUIS — The Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 5 issued a mandate that the health benefits of a class of retirees were not vested as a matter of law; the mandate was filed one day after the appellate panel issued an order denying the class’s motion to stay to allow them to file a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court (Augustine Pacheco, et al. v. Honeywell International Inc., Nos. 18-1006 and 18-1294, 8th Cir.).
-
June 10, 2019
High Court Denies Disability Claimant’s Petition To Review Termination Of Benefits Ruling
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on June 10 denied a disability claimant’s petition for writ of certiorari, refusing to review the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals’ finding that a disability insurer had a reasonable basis for terminating the claimant’s disability benefits (Timothy P. O’Leary v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., No. 18-1266, U.S. Sup.).
-
June 10, 2019
Final Judgment Entered In Settlement Of ERISA ‘Church Plan’ Case
ST. LOUIS — A Missouri federal judge on June 5 entered final judgment and approved a class settlement agreement in a dispute over whether three defined pension benefit plans qualify as exempt “church plans” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (Lisa Feather, et al. v. SSM Health, et al., No. 16-1669, E.D. Mo.).
-
June 10, 2019
Supreme Court To Clarify ‘Actual Knowledge’ Standard In ERISA Cases
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on June 10 granted certiorari in a case that poses the question of whether the three-year statute of limitations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act can be avoided by demonstrating an absence of “actual knowledge” that a breach of fiduciary duty has occurred (Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee, et al. v. Christopher Sulyma, et al., No. 18-1116, U.S. Sup.).
-
June 10, 2019
ERISA Preempts State Law Claims; Disability Suit Barred By Plan’s Suit Limitation
CHICAGO — A district court did not err in finding that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act preempts a disability claimant’s state law claims and that the claimant’s complaint is barred by the disability plan’s three-year suit limitation, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said June 7 (Teresa Di Joseph v. Standard Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-2178, 7th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17127).
-
June 10, 2019
United Seeks High Court Review Of 8th Circuit’s Cross-Plan Offsetting Ruling
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 30 petition for writ of certiorari filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, UnitedHealth Group Inc. urges the high court to review the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ decision that the company’s practice of cross-plan offsetting is not authorized by its plan documents and is in tension with the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act because the appeals court’s decision is in conflict with other circuits and with the high court's precedents (UnitedHealth Group Inc., et al., v. Louis J. Peterson D.C., et al., No. 18-1498, U.S. Sup.).
-
June 7, 2019
Judge: Insurer Shorted Period For Medically Necessary Mental Health Treatments
SALT LAKE CITY — A federal judge in Utah on June 4 affirmed complete denial of coverage for treatment at one mental health treatment facility under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, but found treatment at a second medically necessary for longer than the insurer allowed (Mike G., et al. v. BlueCross BlueShield of Texas, No. 17-347, D. Utah., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94291).