Search the News Archive

Career Advice for the New(er) ERISA Lawyer

Excerpt: Here are some tips: ... Stay Current ... Network ... Master a Hot Topic ... Never publish anything only once ... Invite yourself to the party ... Get a Life.

Massachusetts High Court Rules That ERISA Preempts a Claim Based on Unjust Enrichment

Excerpt: The Court noted [two reasons] for concluding that Hitachi's claim is preempted by ERISA. [The second is that in] enacting ERISA, Congress intended to provide a comprehensive remedial scheme that would serve as the exclusive enforcement mechanism for ERISA disputes. This scheme provides strong evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize the remedies that it simply did not incorporate in the statute. A remedy based on a claim of unjust enrichment-as opposed to certain claims for restitution- is not one of the remedies included in the statute. Having concluded that ERISA preempts Hitachi's claims for two reasons, the Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the case.

Sixth Circuit Rules That a Program of Insured Benefits to Which an Employer Pays the Premiums for at Least One Employee Is Subject to ERISA As to All Employees

Excerpt: In Helfman v. GE Group Life Assurance Company, No. 08-2168 (6th Cir. 2009), the Court faced the question of whether a program, which consisted of two insurance policies that paid long-term disability benefits to employees (the 'Program'), was subject to ERISA. The plaintiff did not want the Program to be subject to ERISA, because he was bringing a state law claim against the insurers under the Program which ERISA would preempt. The case centered on whether the Program was exempt from ERISA under the 'safe harbor' found in the Department of Labor's regulations at 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-1(j). For the safe harbor to apply to the Program, among other requirements of the regulations, no premiums may be paid to the Program by an employer (the 'No Premium Condition').

In Unpublished Opinion, Fourth Circuit Reminds Us Who Can Sue Under ERISA

In this case, the district court based its ruling on its findings that:[the individual plaintiff] lacked standing to sue the Clark Group under ERISA, because she failed to show an injury in fact .... ISN lacked jurisdiction to sue under section 502(a)(2) of ERISA, as it was Plan sponsor -- not a fiduciary of the Plan.

Tenth Circuit Determines Plaintiff Has No Standing to Bring Suit Under ERISA, So His Claim Cannot Be Removed to Federal Court

The doctrine of complete preemption, discussed in this case, is separate and apart from ERISA's preemption of state law found in Section 514(a) of ERISA. The complete preemption creates federal jurisdiction, while Section 514(a) preemption is a defense to a state law claim pertaining to an employee benefit plan.

Ninth Circuit Rules That ERISA Fiduciary Responsibility Can Apply to Company Decisions

Excerpt: In Johnson v. Couturier, Nos. 08-17369, 08-17373, 08-17375, 08-17631 (Ninth Circuit 2009), the Court broadened some of the thinking on the application of ERISA. In this case, in his capacity as president and a director of Noll Manufacturing Company and its successors ('Noll'), the defendant, Clair R. Couturier, Jr. had channeled $34.8 million of company assets to his own possession by applying that amount to buy out certain deferred compensation agreements (the 'Buy Out'). Couturier was also a trustee of Noll's employee stock ownership plan (the 'ESOP'). The plaintiffs, who are participants in the ESOP, filed suit against Couturier alleging breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA. The Court faced a number of issues, including some interesting ERISA matters.

Program of Administrative Services Is Neither a Welfare Plan Subject to ERISA Nor a MEWA, Says DOL

"[DOL Advisory Opinion 2017-01A] concluded that the Program is not an employee welfare benefit plan. It said that such a plan does not include a program maintained by an employer (or group or association of employers) which ... has no employee participants and does not provide covered benefits to employees or their dependents. Rather than being established or maintained for the purpose of providing welfare benefits to participants and beneficiaries, the Program operates so as to facilitate the efficient establishment and operation of employee benefit plans by employer-members."

California Court Says ERISA Preempts Physician's State Law Claim of Tortious Interference

"[Dr. Morris Silver's claim against a self-funded health plan] for interference with contractual relations [with his patients] is predicated on the EOB the Plan sent to policyholders stating the 'Total Patient Responsibility' for the amount charged by Silver was zero. Whether use of this EOB essentially constituted a tort -- a question with wide-ranging implications for any plan using a similar form -- is precisely the kind of decision that conflict preemption is intended to eliminate ... As such, this cause of action addresses an area of exclusive federal concern -- the manner in which adverse determinations are communicated to plan participants -- and directly affects the relationship between the plan and participants." [Morris B. Silver M.D., Inc. v. Int'l Longshore & Warehouse Union, No. B267941 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2016)]

Sixth Circuit Rules That 'Clear Notice' Standard Should Apply When Determining Whether to Impose ERISA Penalty for Failing to Furnish a Document Upon Request

"[The employee's] counsel ... broadly phrased the request as one for 'all documents comprising the administrative record and/or supporting Nationwide's decision.' The Court said that, although such language would not pass the clear-notice test for most of the documents identified in section 104(b)(4), one is hard-pressed to believe that the BAC should not have known that the accidental-death policy was the key document supporting its decision to deny Nicole's claim." [Cultrona v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., Nos. 13-3558/3585 (6th Cir. Apr. 9, 2014)]

Fifth Circuit: Investment Advisor Is Not an ERISA Fiduciary and Thus Is Not Liable for Alleged Misrepresentations About Proposed Investment

"[The Court found that the investment advisor] is not a fiduciary ... because he did not exercise discretionary authority or control over the oil and gas investment, as he did not cause the Plan's trustees to relinquish their independent discretion in investing the Plan's funds and to instead follow the course that he prescribed ... [and] because he did not receive a fee from the Plan in connection with the oil and gas company investment; he received a fee only from a third party." [Tiblier v. Dlabal, No. 13-50344, (5th Cir. Feb. 28, 2014)]