Subscribe (Free) to
Daily or Weekly Newsletters
Post a Job

Featured Jobs

Client Service Specialist

EPIC RPS
(Remote / Norwich NY)

EPIC RPS logo

Defined Benefit Specialist II or III

Nova 401(k) Associates
(Remote)

Nova 401(k) Associates logo

Retirement Plan Administrator

Compensation Strategies Group, Ltd.
(Remote)

Compensation Strategies Group, Ltd. logo

Senior Plan Administrator

Merkley Retirement Consultants
(Remote)

Merkley Retirement Consultants logo

Omni Operator

BPAS
(Utica NY)

BPAS logo

Census Coordinator

BPAS
(Utica NY / Hybrid)

BPAS logo

Distributions Processor - Qualified Retirement Plans

Anchor 3(16) Fiduciary Solutions, LLC
(Remote / Wexford PA)

Anchor 3(16) Fiduciary Solutions, LLC logo

Plan Installation Manager

July Business Services
(Remote / Waco TX)

July Business Services logo

Retirement Combo Plan Administrator

Heritage Pension Advisors, Inc.
(Remote / Commack NY)

Heritage Pension Advisors, Inc. logo

Implementation Specialist

Nova 401(k) Associates
(Remote)

Nova 401(k) Associates logo

Plan Administrator

DWC ERISA Consultants LLC
(Remote)

DWC ERISA Consultants LLC logo

Regional Sales Consultant

The Pension Source
(AL / AR / GA / KY / MS / TN / TX)

The Pension Source logo

View More Employee Benefits Jobs

Free Newsletters

“BenefitsLink continues to be the most valuable resource we have at the firm.”

-- An attorney subscriber

Mobile app icon
LinkedIn icon     Twitter icon     Facebook icon

Sixth Circuit Opines on ERISA 'Safe Harbor' Exemption
ERISA Fiduciary Guidebook Link to more items from this source
[Guidance Overview]
July 27, 2009
Excerpt: In general, in order to fall under this safe harbor (and fall out of ERISA), one of the requirements of the safe harbor is that no contributions be made by the employer, i.e. if the employer is making contributions to the plan, then it is an ERISA-covered plan. Thus, because many disability plans are funded either partially or fully by the employer, they are covered by ERISA. In the recent Sixth Circuit case of Helfman v. GE Group Life Assurance Company, et al., a participant had challenged the district court's decision that the plan was covered by ERISA because the participant sought to get out from under the ERISA banner of deference afforded the plan administrator's decision. The district court had ruled that the plan administrator had not abused its discretion and upheld the insurer's termination of the participant's benefits.

MORE >>

Please click here to report this link if it is broken (for example, if you see a "404 File Not Found" error message after you click on the linked news item's title).
An important word about authorship: BenefitsLink® created this link to the news item, but we are not the news item's author (unless expressly shown above).