In 2002, Caterpillar, Inc., added

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "In 2002, Caterpillar, Inc., added"

Transcription

1 The Employer Giveth and Taketh Away Retiree Health Benefits under ERISA-Governed Health Plans By Helen M. Kemp In 2002, Caterpillar, Inc., added $75 million to income with the accounting gain it got from boosting the health care premiums its retirees had to pay and making other changes to retiree benefits. Caterpillar s position was that it did not cut benefits to boost earnings. Rather, it did it to help retirees, by keeping the plan more affordable for the company. Throughout 2004, corporations such as AT&T, General Motors, Motorola, Sears, and SBC Communications announced that they either are eliminating company-subsidized medical insurance for employees after retirement or increasing the premiums that retirees pay for these benefits. Then there are retirees such as Mabel Kramer, who has an income of $989 per month from her pension benefit and Social Security. Until 2000, she had been paying nothing for her health care coverage because it had been provided as part of the retiree medical benefits of GenCorp, her husband s employer. This changed when GenCorp began to charge retirees for health insurance. Now, her medical benefits cost her $284 a month not a large premium in and of itself but an enormous amount considering her monthly income. 1 Before 1980, most employers that provided retiree health coverage did so on a lifetime basis. The trend, especially for firms with labor unions, was to continue to improve retiree health benefits with each successive labor contract. Beginning in the early 1990s, however, sharply rising medical costs and the adoption of Financial Accounting Standard No. 106 (FAS No. 106) made employers aware of the extent of their liabilities in this area. In brief, FAS No. 106 requires employers to calculate their accumulated postretirement benefit obligations, i.e., the cost of providing future health benefits, and to charge the entire future cost against current earnings or to accrete the liability over 20 years or more, with a correlative annual charge against current earnings. 2 As a result of FAS No. 16, a growing number of employers began to cut back or eliminate altogether health insurance coverage. According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, in percent of companies with 500 or more employees offered health benefits for current and future Medicare eligible retirees. That figure declined to 23 percent in A 2003 survey of 408 large companies found that one-fifth said they were likely to terminate health coverage for future retirees in the next three years. 4 From the employee s perspective, the promise of health insurance benefits at retirement may be a significant inducement in determining employment. Employees such as Mabel Kramer are placed in an untenable financial position when their employer unilaterally reduces their health care subsidy or withdraws health insurance benefits at a time in their lives when they have the fewest options. Courts understand that lack of health insurance for many Americans, retirees included, has been a source of ongoing debate in Congress and state legislatures. They are also aware that most Americans who are insured receive health benefits through their employers. From the employer s perspective, however, courts should not lightly impose an indefinite financial obligation on companies when these employers lack the ability to predict or control costs, unlike with pension plans. Additionally, employers believe that courts should hesitate to impose such an obligation when the result could be as implied by Caterpillar s actions to discourage employers from providing these benefits in the first instance. These brief examples indicate the depth and breadth of the legal area surrounding the realm of the retiree health benefits, an area that not only includes the legal precepts and tenets of ERISA, contract law, and vesting but almost invariably attempts to take into account the competing and significant policy concerns at issue. ERISA and Employee Welfare Plans Congress enacted the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) 5 after employer mismanagement left thousands of workers and retirees without their pensions. Before ERISA, these benefit plans had been subject to widespread abuse, leaving employees responsible for policing their individual plans or at risk of losing their benefits. Prompted by this mismanagement and the considerable growth 1

2 in the size, scope, and numbers of employee benefit plans, Congress sought to protect employees by requiring plan disclosure, establishing standards of conduct, and providing employees access to the federal court system. 6 The intent of ERISA was to provide a uniform body of employee benefit law for vesting, funding, insurance, and portability standards. It proposed to eliminate conflicting or inconsistent state and local regulation of employee benefit plans and to establish exclusive federal authority for this regulation. Title I of ERISA is comprised of three subchapters, with subchapter I providing protection of employee benefits. Within subchapter I, ERISA encompasses any employee pension or welfare benefit plan. An employee welfare benefit plan is statutorily defined as any plan, fund, or program... to the extent that such plan, fund, or program was established or is maintained for the purpose of providing for its participants or their beneficiaries, through the purchase of insurance or otherwise, (A) medical, surgical, or hospital care or benefits, or benefits in the event of sickness, accident, disability, death or unemployment, or vacation benefits, apprenticeship or other training programs, or day care centers, scholarship funds, or prepaid legal services,... 7 ERISA applies to welfare benefit plans for unionized and nonunionized workers. It does not apply to the welfare benefit plans sponsored by governmental agencies or some churches. No one disputes that a retiree health insurance benefit plan is a welfare benefit plan under ERISA and that an employer is generally free under ERISA to amend or terminate such benefits at any time. 8 Unlike pension plans, welfare benefit plans are not subject to mandatory vesting requirements under ERISA, and, in fact, the general rule is that an employee welfare benefit plan is not vested. 9 It is this difference that drives, and decides, much of the litigation with regard to the elimination of retiree health benefits. Vesting In examining the issues surrounding alteration of retiree health benefits, the first issue that courts address is whether or not a right to benefit arises from a vested contractual obligation, and the second is the scope of that right or benefit. 10 An employer may relinquish its freedom to amend or terminate benefits by contracting with its employees for the vesting of welfare benefits. Thus, even though an employer is generally free to modify its life insurance plan, if an employer promised vested benefits, those benefits will be enforced. 11 A general rule is that written ERISA plans cannot be amended or modified through informal communications. Accordingly, many circuits have held that a retiree s right to lifetime benefits can only be found if it is established by contract under the terms of the ERISA-governed benefit plan document. 12 Additionally, because vesting of welfare plan benefits is not required under ERISA, courts have held that an employer s commitment to vest these benefits is not to be inferred lightly, and the establishment of these benefits must be stated in clear and express language. 13 Courts often require that any promise of vested benefits be made in the plan documents rather than contained in extrinsic nonplan documents. If a plan document unambiguously indicates whether retiree benefits are vested, the unambiguous language should be enforced. However, if the language is ambiguous, a court will review evidence extrinsic to plan language to determine if benefits have vested. Informal communications, such as oral promises made by human resources employees, may sometimes be considered if those statements create an ambiguity when they (1) are considered in relation to the plan documents and (2) are misleading. 14 When an employee is retired, employers look to documents in effect at the time of retirement to determine vesting. For unionized employees under collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), employers and employees may agree that welfare benefit plans cannot be terminated or changed. But the general rule is that after a CBA expires, an employer generally is free to modify or terminate any retiree medical benefits that the employer provided pursuant to that CBA. The parties to a CBA may agree, however, that the benefits provided for in the CBA will vest and thus survive the termination of the CBA. Under both ERISA and the Labor Management Relations Act, 15 if an employer promises vested benefits, that promise will be enforced. 16 Plan Documents Whether under a CBA or other benefit plan, courts typically expect that any promise of vested benefits will have been made in the plan documents. Thus, the first place the parties look for such a commitment is the summary plan description (SPD). The SPD is the statutorily established means of informing participants of the terms of the plan and its benefits. 17 The SPD may contain language promising vested benefits or reserving for the employer the right to change or discontinue plans and plan benefits. However, regardless of the language in the SPD, ambiguity may arise in a number of ways. For example, there could be a clear promise of benefits coupled with an ambiguous reservation of rights clause in the SPD or an unequivocal reservation of rights clause in plan documents coupled with clear lifetime promises in nonplan documents and oral communications made to employees. While there is no one definite 2

3 position, courts have usually held that an unambiguous reservation of rights provision in an SPD generally negates a claim that retiree health benefits are vested. Although a provision reserving the employer s right to terminate or amend health benefits may not, alone, be sufficient to negate an inference that employees benefits have vested, it is generally strong evidence that an employer did not intend to allow vesting. The weight of authority throughout the circuits indicates that an unambiguous general amendment provision in a welfare benefits plan is of itself sufficient to negate any inference that the employer intends for employee welfare benefits to vest contractually, and thus become unalterable, after the employee retires. 18 As stated by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Abbruscato v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 19 employees cannot reasonably believe that their benefits are vested if the same document that promises lifetime benefits also clearly informs employees that those benefits are subject to change. 20 In a vesting situation, the employees or retirees usually argue that the employer made contradictory promises during their company careers that company-funded benefits would continue for their lives, creating an ambiguity in the official plan document or SPD, or overriding it. Once again, however, an unambiguous reservation of rights clause generally negates ambiguous contractual or plan provisions. For example, even though some documents may promise lifetime benefits, the majority of the circuits have held that the lifetime nature of a welfare benefit does not operate to vest that benefit if the employer reserved the right to amend or terminate the benefit, given what it takes to overcome the presumption that welfare benefits do not vest, combined with [our] reluctance to interpret a contract as being at war with itself. 21 The following are examples of typical unambiguous reservation of rights provisions that courts have held negate any inference that the employer intended for benefits to vest: 1. This plan can be amended at any time, without consent of the insured employees or any other person having a beneficial interest in it The coverage described here may be amended, revoked or suspended at the Company s discretion at any time, even after your retirement The Plan Sponsor and your employer intend to continue the Plan indefinitely. Since future changes and conditions cannot be foreseen, we do reserve the right to suspend, terminate or modify the Plan at any time when deemed to be in the best interest of the participating member firms. 24 As held in Wise v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 25 even the omission of a reservation of rights clause from the documents (or silence ) does not necessarily operate to waive the employer s right to terminate or modify the benefits available under an ERISA welfare benefit. 26 In Wise, the employer issued SPDs that described health care benefits for retirees but failed to include any express reservation of the right to amend or terminate the plan s benefit provisions. When the employer realized this failure, it issued new SPDs that laid the groundwork for future changes 27 by including a reservation clause. Shortly after issuing these new SPDs, the employer announced the termination of health care benefits for those retiring after a certain cutoff date. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment to El Paso Natural Gas, reasoning that it had not contractually vested its employees with free lifetime health care coverage because such extra-erisa commitments must be found in the plan documents and must be stated in clear and express language. In support of its decision, Wise explained that contractual vesting was a narrow doctrine and to prevail the plan must assert strong prohibitory or granting language. Mere silence was not of itself abrogation. 28 Conversely, in Devlin v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield (Kunkel), 29 a case where one SPD promised lifetime benefits but a subsequently issued SPD contained a reservation of rights clause, the Second Circuit concluded that the relevant provisions were only those contained in the earlier SPD, and that the reservation of rights clause contained in the later SPD was ineffective as to those retirees. 30 Extrinsic Evidence In most circuits, where language in the agreement suggests a grant of lifetime benefits and no unambiguous reservation of rights clause exists, courts have allowed extrinsic evidence to be presented to determine if benefits had vested. 31 One of the canons of interpretation requires that if the plan is ambiguous, a court may resort to extrinsic evidence to aid its interpretation of the plan and to resolve the ambiguity. ERISA welfare plans are generally interpreted by looking to the language of the plan (supplemented in appropriate cases by evidence essential to resolving a relevant ambiguity), not to any one party s interpretation of that language. However, if the plan language is not ambiguous, extrinsic evidence cannot be used to create an ambiguity and should not be used to add terms to a contract that is plausibly complete without them. 32 Courts begin by determining if ambiguity exists in the contract language and whether extrinsic evidence is required. For example, many plans or contracts contain the phrase lifetime benefits. The employer will assert that the phrase simply refers to benefits continuing through the life of the contract or until the plan is amended. The employee will argue with equal fervor that the phrase means the benefits will continue throughout the life of the retiree. 3

4 In Unisys II, 33 the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was asked to decide whether the district court erred in holding, on a breach of contract claim, that the SPDs that used the terms lifetime or for life to describe the duration of medical benefits, while at the same time reserving the right to modify or terminate at any time and for any reason the plans under which these benefits were provided, were unambiguous. The Third Circuit held that for medical benefit plans to be vested, an intent to vest such benefits should be evident from the language of the plan documents. 34 Similarly, the Third Circuit held that the Unisys documents straightforward promise in conjunction with reservation of rights clauses would not render plan documents unambiguous. The court therefore rejected the retirees claim that the employer breached the terms of the plan. If the court determines that the language is ambiguous, it will allow extrinsic evidence. Once allowed, the type of extrinsic evidence considered by the court takes many forms. Courts have considered not only handbooks, brochures, letters, and other documentation but also informal communications, such as oral promises made by human resources or other management employees, especially when those statements are in contravention of plan documents. 35 One example of extrinsic evidence by omission can be found in the case of Maurer v. Joy Technologies, Inc., 36 in which the court held that the union was precluded from arguing that retirement benefits had vested because it failed to file a grievance when the employer distributed an SPD containing an explicit reservation of rights allowing the employer to terminate coverage. 37 Presumptions for and against Vesting In situations where the SPD or another plan document contains ambiguous language, a preliminary question is whether, to interpret the agreements to determine whether there is a right to benefits, a particular legal presumption should be imposed, either against or in favor of vesting. This question has been the subject of extensive debate and differing treatment among the circuits. Some circuits impose a presumption that there is no vesting in the absence of a written, unambiguous expression of intent to do so, 38 whereas others impose a presumption in favor of vesting if there is some ambiguity in the language conferring the benefit. 39 However, a majority of the circuits appear to prefer no vesting presumption at all and decide the vesting issue on the fact-specific nature of the particular case in front of them. 40 The circuits that allow a vesting presumption generally base their reasoning on the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit s decision in International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers v. Yard-Man, Inc., 41 which sets forth the guiding principles for determining whether the parties to a CBA intended for retiree health insurance benefits to vest. In this case, the Sixth Circuit held that courts must apply basic rules of contract interpretation to discern the intent of the parties and should look to extrinsic evidence to determine the parties intent only when the terms of the contract are ambiguous. Considering the context in which the benefits at issue arose in Yard- Man, the Sixth Circuit went on to note that since benefits for retirees are only permissive rather than mandatory subjects of collective bargaining, it is unlikely that such benefits, which are typically understood as a form of delayed compensation or reward for past services, would be left to the contingencies of future negotiations. 42 Thus, the court noted, there is an inference that retiree benefits will vest because retiree benefits are in a sense status benefits that, as such, carry with them an inference that they continue as long as the prerequisite status is maintained. 43 The courts imposing a presumption against vesting base that approach largely on their construction of ERISA, drawing an adverse inference from Congress s decision to require vesting for pension rights but not to include a comparable requirement for welfare benefits. 44 Courts drawing this adverse inference believe that the lack of such a requirement was not merely an oversight on the part of Congress but part of its plan because the costs of such plans are subject to fluctuating and unpredictable variables that prevent accurate prediction of future needs and costs. 45 As the Second Circuit has observed, [a]utomatic vesting was rejected because the costs of such plans are subject to fluctuating and unpredictable variables. Actuarial decisions concerning fixed annuities are based on fairly stable data, and vesting is appropriate. In contrast, medical insurance must take account of inflation, changes in medical practice and technology, and increases in the cost of treatment independent of inflation. These unstable variables prevent accurate prediction of future needs and costs. 46 Becoming somewhat frustrated with the issue of vesting and presumptions, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Rossetto v. Pabst Brewing Co. 47 devised guidelines for subsequent cases in that circuit. The Rossetto case concerned the issue of whether retiree health benefits survive the termination of the CBA. When looking at the relevant CBA provisions, the Seventh Circuit reasoned that if someone who read these provisions without knowing anything about their background or real-world context would say, Yes, it sure looks as if the provisions are in effect only for the term of the agreement in which they appear then Pabst is off the hook as a matter of law 4

5 (that is, the case would not reach the jury) unless the plaintiffs can adduce (1) objective evidence of (2) a latent, or, as it is sometimes call, an extrinsic, ambiguity. A plaintiff s showing of a genuine ambiguity (beyond silence), either patent or latent, knocks out the presumption that an employee s entitlement to health benefits expires with the agreement that created the entitlement. This presumption against vesting, however, kicks in only if all the court has to go on is silence. 48 As indicated by these different approaches, it should come as no surprise that the circuit courts are split on what contract language is necessary to create vested rights in welfare benefits. Courts have found that the following language is capable of creating a vested benefit in retirees: 1. The Health Care... coverages an employee has under this Article at the time of retirement... shall be continued thereafter provided that suitable arrangements for continuation can be made with the Carrier(s) [R]etired employees, after completion of twenty years of full-time permanent service and at least age 55, will be insured Both you and your spouse will be covered for the remainder of your lives. 51 Courts have found that the following language is ambiguous and have allowed extrinsic evidence to be presented on the issue of vesting: 1. Employees retiring at age 62 or later... will be entitled to comprehensive medical expense insurance benefits for themselves and their covered dependents until the death of the retired employee The surviving spouse of an Employee who is retired by the Company on or after the effective date of this Agreement shall continue to be eligible to receive such benefits to the earlier of the date of death or remarriage When the former employee has attained the age of 65 years then: (1) The Company will provide insurance benefits equal to the active group benefits... for the former employee and his spouse. 54 Courts have found the following language insufficient to create a vested benefit for retirees: 1. During the term of this [a]greement, there shall be no reduction in the schedule of benefits During your retirement, you and your covered dependents will have the same Basic Health Care coverage as you had while active at no cost to you The company fully intends to continue this [benefit] indefinitely, but reserves the right to change or discontinue it if necessary. 57 Whether the language is considered specific enough to create a vested benefit is in some part dependent on the circuit. However, all of the circuits have found vesting commitments where the promise was clearly and succinctly expressed in a singular location rather than hidden within a semantic swamp involving a multitude of documents. Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims Regardless of vesting presumptions, claims by a beneficiary for wrongful denial of benefits (no matter how they are styled) have been held by the Supreme Court to fall directly under 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA, which provides an exclusive federal cause of action for resolution of such disputes. 58 While ERISA generally preempts statutory and common-law claims based on oral representations that contradict unambiguous written plan terms, a party may nevertheless pursue a breach of fiduciary duty cause of action. 59 Section 404(a)(1) of ERISA provides that a fiduciary shall discharge his duties with respect to a plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries. The law in most circuits instructs that when a plan administrator explains plan benefits to its employees, it acts in a fiduciary capacity. 60 Generally, an employer may modify or terminate its retiree benefit plan without implicating fiduciary duties. However, because of the administrator s status as fiduciary under Section 404(a)(1), the fiduciary may not materially mislead those to whom the duties of loyalty and prudence are owed. Not all misleading communications constitute affirmative or material misrepresentations. In Varity Corp. v. Howe, 61 the U.S. Supreme Court held that when a company intentionally misleads beneficiaries about the future of their benefits, the company is acting as a fiduciary but also cautioned that a company does not act as a fiduciary simply because it makes statements about its expected financial condition or because an ordinary business decision turned out to have an adverse impact on the plan. 62 The following case is illustrative in this regard. In the Sixth Circuit s Sprague v. General Motors Corp., 63 the company made numerous representations, both in writing and orally, that retirement benefits were for life. Despite this evidence, the court rejected the retirees breach of fiduciary duty claim, stating that what the company told the retirees was that their coverage was to be paid by GM for their lifetimes, which was undeniably true under the terms of GM s then-existing plan. 64 The Seventh Circuit has found that advice to employees stressing the availability of lifetime benefits without any qualifiers indicating that the employer reserved the right to change or terminate the benefits was not a breach of fiduciary duty. 65 When do the representations cross the fine line between merely misleading and affirmative misrepresentation? The Second Circuit, which has given the broadest scope 5

6 to ERISA fiduciary duty claims, has held that representing to plan participants that a plan s benefits are lifetime when they are not vested can create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether misrepresentations were made or whether there was a failure to provide complete and accurate information. 66 The Third Circuit in Unisys I 67 held that a fiduciary duty claim could proceed, despite the employer s reservation of the right to terminate retirement benefits, when oral and written representations were made to employees that the benefits would continue for life and the employer was aware that retirement decisions were being based on the mistaken assumption that the benefits were also vested. 68 The Sixth Circuit has held that a breach of fiduciary duty claim was made out where a company both of its own accord and in response to specific employee inquiries misrepresented to employees that a reservation of rights clause in the plan did not allow retirement benefits to be changed when the legal effect of the clause was precisely the opposite. 69 But the Seventh Circuit has held that while there is a duty to provide accurate information under ERISA, negligence in fulfilling that duty is not actionable, which is why the employer must have set out to disadvantage or deceive its employees, as in Varity, in order for a breach of fiduciary duty to be made out. 70 The Unisys I litigation is instructive. The Unisys retirees had alleged that the employer had breached fiduciary duties by misrepresenting to them that benefits were for life when, in fact, the plan language made benefits terminable. The evidence showed that the message that medical benefits would last for life was confirmed repeatedly and systematically throughout the... organization, by all levels of management, in writing and verbally. 71 Evidence also indicated that the highest levels of management recognized that employees believed their medical benefits were forever and could not be taken from them, and that the company knew that employees accelerated their retirement plans because of the belief that by retiring at a certain point in time they would lock in the lifetime coverage that they had under the current plan. The Unisys I court recognized that an ERISA fiduciary may not affirmatively mislead plan participants 72 and further determined that equitable relief is available to retirees if a breach of fiduciary duty is proven. Thus, the circuit concluded that where a plan administrator... fails to provide information when it knows that its failure to do so might cause harm, the plan administrator has breached its fiduciary duty to individual plan participants and beneficiaries. 73 The court noted in this case virtually the entire company management had consistently misrepresented the plan, not just on one occasion or to one employee, but over a period of many years both orally (in group meetings) and in writing (in newsletters) as well. 74 In sum, case law indicates that to make out a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA, a plaintiff must show that (1) the company was acting in a fiduciary capacity, (2) the company made affirmative misrepresentations or failed to inform plan participants and beneficiaries adequately, (3) the company knew of the confusion generated by its misrepresentations or its silence, and (4) there was resulting harm to employees. Thus, the breach of fiduciary claim focuses not on the company s failure to continue to provide lifetime or continued benefits but on its conduct or actions in leading employees to believe that the plans did provide these benefits. Estoppel Claims Estoppel is another viable theory of recovery in retiree health benefit cases. However, in general, estoppel can usually only be invoked in the context of ambiguous or unwritten plan provisions coupled with oral representations. To prevail on an estoppel cause of action, a plaintiff must establish (1) a material representation, (2) reasonable and detrimental reliance upon the representation, and (3) extraordinary or extreme circumstances. 75 If plan documents unambiguously reserve the right to deny, change, or terminate benefits, the employees estoppel claim must fail because they cannot show reasonable reliance. The Third Circuit s decision in Unisys II holds that an ERISA beneficiary may recover benefits under an equitable estoppel theory upon establishing a material misrepresentation, reasonable and detrimental reliance upon the representation, and extraordinary circumstances. 76 Applying this standard to the facts therein, the Unisys II court held that due to the unambiguous reservation of rights clauses in the SPDs by which Unisys could terminate its retiree medical benefit plans, the regular retirees could not establish reasonable detrimental reliance based on an interpretation that the SPDs promised vested benefits. 77 The Seventh Circuit applies a similar standard in holding that employees cannot show reasonable reliance even when promised lifetime benefits where the general retirement plan documents, to which the employees were referred, contained numerous, unambiguous provisions reserving CNA s right to amend, suspend, or terminate the health care subsidy. 78 Conversely, the Second Circuit has allowed estoppel claims even if the plan contains an unambiguous reservation of rights when the employees reliance is reasonable based upon responses made by management personnel to their questions about the retirement program. 79 The prerequisite of the estoppel claim being extraordinary is also difficult to overcome. In the Second Circuit decision of Devlin v. Transportation Communications International Union, 80 retired union employees challenged their former employer s amendment of a welfare 6

7 benefit plan to require retirees to pay a monthly premium for medical benefits that were previously provided at no charge. As part of their evidence, the retirees claimed that they were told on a number of occasions by high officials of the union that their health benefits would be paid throughout their retirement. In addition, the retirees proffered a letter from the president of the union to the same effect, as well as an affidavit from an ex-official in which he stated that he and other officials communicated to members and retirees that their health benefits would always be free. The Second Circuit assumed that the retirees could satisfy the material misrepresentation element. However, the court rejected the claim based on its view that the retirees had failed to adduce evidence sufficient to show detrimental reliance or extraordinary circumstances because they showed no evidence to suggest that employers sought the retirement of any of the employees or that the promise of free, lifetime health benefits was used to intentionally induce any particular behavior on the employees part. 81 The Second Circuit did find extraordinary circumstances in Kunkel, where an employer induced employees to work for it by promising lifetime benefits, stating: [the retirees were] induced by Empire to work for over twenty and up to forty years in order to receive (inter alia) a particular level of life insurance coverage... Empire intentionally promised lifetime life insurance benefits to lure (and retain) employees away from other firms paying higher salaries and then denied those benefits after the employees were of an age where they could neither make up the salary difference or obtain alternative benefits at a reasonable cost. If so found, we believe that such a practice constitutes extraordinary circumstances sufficient to support plaintiffs promissory estoppel claim. 82 Conclusion The plight of the retirees in cases where they clearly believed that their employer-based medical insurance benefits would continue for their lifetimes is indeed unfortunate. Equally unfortunate are the everincreasing costs of retiree health care, which can threaten the ability of employers to stay in business. As case law shows, employers are not required to give retirees health benefits, and even when employers do offer benefits to their retired workers, nothing in federal law prevents them from cutting or eliminating those benefits unless they have made a specific promise to maintain them. Even then, if the SPD and/or other controlling plan documents such as a CBA give the employer the right to change the terms of that plan, the employee may lose coverage any time during his or her retirement. Notes 1. See Ellen E. Schultz & Theo Francis, How Cuts in Retiree Benefits Fatten Companies Bottom Lines, WALL ST. J., Mar. 16, 2004, at A1. 2. See Wise v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 986 F.2d 929, & n.3 (5th Cir. 1993) (discussing the negative effect of FAS No. 106 on retiree health benefits). 3. P. FROSTIN & D. SALISBURY, EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RESEARCH INSTITUTE, RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS: SAVINGS NEEDED TO FUND HEALTH CARE IN RETIREMENT 6, fig. 1 (Feb. 2003). 4. HENRY J. KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION, CURRENT TRENDS AND FUTURE OUTLOOK FOR RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS: FINDINGS FROM THE KAISER/HEWITT 2004 SURVEY ON RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS (Executive Summary) at xi xiv (Dec. 2004) U.S.C.S (2004). 6. See H.R. REP. NO , at 4 (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4639, U.S.C. 1002(1) (2004). 8. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen, 514 U.S. 73, 78 (1995). 9. See id., 514 U.S. 73 (1995); In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Med. Ben. ERISA Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 901 (3d Cir. 1995) (Unisys II); Gable v. Sweetheart Cup Co., Inc., 35 F.3d 851, 855 (4th Cir. 1994); Alday v. Container Corp. of Am., 906 F.2d 660, 663 (11th Cir. 1990). 10. See Diehl v. Twin Disc, Inc., 102 F.3d 301, 309 (7th Cir. 1996); see also Bidlack v. Wheelabrator Corp., 993 F.2d 603, (7th Cir. 1993). 11. Diehl, 102 F.3d at 309; Bidlack, 993 F.2d at See Pisciotta v. Teledyne Indus., 91 F.3d 1326, 1329 (9th Cir. 1996); Moore v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 856 F.2d 488, 492 (2d Cir. 1988). 13. See, e.g., Unisys II, 58 F.3d at 902; see also Frahm v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc y, 137 F.3d 955, 958 (7th Cir. 1998); Sprague v. Gen. Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388, 400 (6th Cir. 1998); John Morrell & Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int l Union, AFL-CIO, 37 F.3d 1302, 1304 (8th Cir. 1994). 14. See McMunn v. Pirelli Tire LLC, 161 F. Supp. 2d 97, 122 (D. Conn. 2001) U.S.C.S. 185 et seq. 16. Am. Fed. of Grain Millers v. Int l Multifoods Corp., 116 F.3d 976, 979 (2d Cir. 1997). 17. See 29 U.S.C. 1022(a) & 1102 (2004). 18. See Diehl v. Twin Disc, Inc., 102 F.3d 301, 307 (7th Cir. 1996). See also Chiles v. Ceridian Corp., 95 F.3d 1505, 1512 n.2 (10th Cir. 1996); Alday v. Container Corp. of Am., 906 F.2d 660, 665 (11th Cir. 1990); but see Abbruscato v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 274 F.3d 90, 100 (2d Cir. 2001) (general amendment sufficient only in situations where the same document contains both the promise and the reservation of rights) F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2001) F.3d at 99; see also Moore v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 856 F.2d 488, 490 (2d Cir. 1988). 21. Diehl, 102 F.3d at Am. Fed. of Grain Millers v. Int l Multifoods Corp., 116 F.3d 976, 982 (2d Cir. 1997). 23. Vallone v. CNA Fin. Corp., 375 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2004). 24. Int l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers v. Skinner Engine Co., 188 F.3d 130 (3d Cir. 1999) F.2d 929 (5th Cir. 1993). 26. Id. at Id. at Id F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2001). Due to another case referred to as Devlin, this case is cited in and referred to by the Second Circuit as Kunkel v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield. Kunkel was the second named plaintiff in the case. 7

8 I therefore follow the Second Circuit s convention in this article. 30. Id. at Rossetto v. Pabst Brewing Co., 217 F.3d 539, 547 (7th Cir. 2000); see also Abbruscato v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 274 F.3d 90, 101 (2d Cir. 2001); Diehl v. Twin Disc, Inc., 102 F.3d 301, 306 (7th Cir. 1996). 32. Bidlack v. Wheelabrator Corp., 993 F.2d 603, 608 (7th Cir. 1993); see also Joyce v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 171 F.3d 130, (2d Cir. 1999); Am. Fed. of Grain Millers v. Int l Multifoods Corp., 116 F.3d 976, 981 (2d Cir. 1997) (extrinsic evidence cannot alter the meaning of unambiguous terms) F.3d 896 (3d Cir. 1995). 34. Id. at McMunn v. Pirelli Tire LLC, 161 F. Supp. 2d 97, 122 (D. Conn. 2001); United Steel Workers of Am., AFL-CIO v. Newman-Crosby Steel, Inc., 822 F. Supp. 862, (D.R.I. 1993) (considering oral statements as extrinsic evidence of parties intent in construing ambiguous terms of CBA) F.3d 913 (6th Cir. 2000). 37. Id. at See, e.g., Int l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers v. Skinner Engine Co., 188 F.3d 130 (3d Cir. 1999); Gable v. Sweetheart Cup Co., Inc., 35 F.3d 851, 855 (4th Cir. 1994). 39. See generally Maurer, 212 F.3d at 917; Int l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers v. Yard-Man, Inc., 716 F.2d 1476 (6th Cir. 1983); United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO v. Textron, Inc., 836 F.2d 6, 9 (1st Cir. 1987) (relying specifically on Yard-Man in finding benefits were vested); United Steelworkers of Am. v. Connors Steel Co., 855 F.2d 1499, 1505 (11th Cir. 1988) ( We fully concur with the decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in [Yard-Man]. ) 40. E.g., Rossetto v. Pabst Brewing Co., 217 F.3d 539, 543 (7th Cir. 2000); Deboard v. Sunshine Mining & Ref. Co., 208 F.3d 1228, (10th Cir. 2000); Joyce v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 171 F.3d 130, (2d Cir. 1999); Int l Ass n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Masonite Corp., 122 F.3d 228, (5th Cir. 1997); Barker v. Ceridian Corp., 122 F.3d 628, (8th Cir. 1997) F.2d 1476 (6th Cir. 1983) F.2d at Id. 44. See, e.g., Skinner Engine Co., 188 F.3d at 139 (citing several courts that apply this rationale). 45. Wise v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 986 F.2d 929, 929 (5th Cir.1993). 46. Moore v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 856 F.2d 488, 492 (2d Cir. 1988) F.3d 539 (7th Cir. 2000). 48. Id. at McCoy v. Meridian Auto. Sys., 390 F.3d 417, 420 (6th Cir. 2004). 50. Kunkel, 274 F.3d 76, 79 (2d Cir. 2001). See note 29 supra. 51. Bidlack v. Wheelabrator Corp., 993 F.2d 603, (7th Cir. 1993). 52. Int l Ass n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Masonite Corp., 122 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 1997). 53. Groover v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 90 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (M.D. Ala. 2000). 54. Int l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers v. Yard-Man, Inc., 716 F.2d 1476, 1480 (6th Cir. 1983). 55. Am. Fed. of Grain Millers v. Int l Multifoods Corp., 116 F.3d 976, 981 (2d Cir. 1997). 56. Joyce v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 171 F.3d 130, 136 (2d Cir. 1999). 57. Hughes v. 3M Retiree Medical Plan, 134 F. Supp. 2d 1062 (D. Minn. 2001). 58. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, (1987). 59. See In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Med. Ben. ERISA Litig., 57 F.3d 1255, 1264 n.13 (3d Cir. 1995) (Unisys I). 60. Id. at 1261 n U.S. 489 (1996). 62. Id. at 505 (quoting from dissent) F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 1998). 64. Id. at Frahm v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc y, 137 F.3d 955, (7th Cir. 1998). 66. Abbruscato v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 274 F.3d 90, (2d Cir. 2001) F.3d 1255 (3d Cir. 1995). 68. Id. at James v. Pirelli, 305 F.3d 439, (6th Cir. 2002). 70. Frahm, 137 F.3d at F.3d at Id. 73. Id. at Id. at See, e.g., Aramony v. United Way Replacement Benefit Plan, 191 F.3d 140, 151 (2d Cir. 1999); Jordan v. Federal Exp. Corp., 116 F.3d 1005, 1011 (3d Cir. 1997); Weir v. Fed. Asset Disposition Ass n, 123 F.3d 281, 290 (5th Cir. 1997); Sandstrom v. Cultor Food Sci., 214 F.3d 795, 797 (7th Cir. 2000) (all requiring extraordinary or extreme circumstances element) F.3d 896, (3d Cir. 1995). 77. Id. at Vallone v. CNA Fin. Corp., 375 F.3d 623, 639 (7th Cir. 2004). 79. McMunn v. Pirelli Tire LLC, 161 F. Supp. 2d 97, 132 (D. Conn. 2001). 80. Devlin v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 173 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 1999). 81. Id. at Kunkel, 274 F.3d at 80. See note 29, supra. 8

ERISA Obligations Related to Promised Pension and Health Benefits

ERISA Obligations Related to Promised Pension and Health Benefits Chapter 4 Cite as 22 Energy & Min. L. Inst. ch. 4 (2002) ERISA Obligations Related to Promised Pension and Health Benefits Ronald E. Meisburg Meikka A. Cutlip Heenan, Althen & Roles, LLP Washington, D.C.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Kelsey-Hayes Company et al Doc. 107 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER,

More information

Retiree Health Benefits: Legal Developments In A Changing Global Economy*

Retiree Health Benefits: Legal Developments In A Changing Global Economy* Retiree Health Benefits: Legal Developments In A Changing Global Economy* Evan Miller Jones Day Washington, D.C. emiller@jonesday.com Andrew M. Kramer Jones Day Washington, D.C. amkramer@jonesday.com Richard

More information

PREEMPTION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

PREEMPTION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS PREEMPTION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ERISA PREEMPTION QUESTIONS 1. What is an ERISA plan? An ERISA plan is any benefit plan that is established and maintained by an employer, an employee organization (union),

More information

COMMENTARY. Secret: Location, Location, Location! JONES DAY

COMMENTARY. Secret: Location, Location, Location! JONES DAY August 2009 JONES DAY COMMENTARY Retiree Medical Litigation s Dirty Little Secret: Location, Location, Location! Over the past 30 years, a tsunami of retiree medical litigation has crashed over the dockets

More information

Retiree Medical Litigation s Dirty Little Secret Location, Location, Location!

Retiree Medical Litigation s Dirty Little Secret Location, Location, Location! VOL. 22, NO. 1 SPRING 2009 BENEFITS LAW JOURNAL Retiree Medical Litigation s Dirty Little Secret Location, Location, Location! James P. Baker, Andy Kramer, Evan Miller, and Steve Sacher Over the past 30

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 18a0223p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT MEAD VEST, v. RESOLUTE FP US INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

More information

ERISA, an Overview. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C et. seq.,

ERISA, an Overview. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C et. seq., ERISA, an Overview The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1001 et. seq., known without affection as ERISA, was an effort by Congress to address the long term viability of Pension

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA JOHN RANNIGAN, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) Case No. 1:08-CV-256 v. ) ) Chief Judge Curtis L. Collier LONG TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE ) FOR

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 12-163 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- NEWELL WINDOW FURNISHINGS,

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 09-3884 KENNETH PEARSON, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, VOITH PAPER ROLLS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court

More information

Employee Relations. A Farewell to Yard-Man. Craig C. Martin and Amanda S. Amert

Employee Relations. A Farewell to Yard-Man. Craig C. Martin and Amanda S. Amert Employee Relations L A W J O U R N A L ERISA Litigation A Farewell to Yard-Man Electronically reprinted from Summer 2015 Craig C. Martin and Amanda S. Amert In January, the U.S. Supreme Court finally did

More information

~bupreme ~eurt nf the i~tniteb ~btate~

~bupreme ~eurt nf the i~tniteb ~btate~ No. 09-601 Supreme Cou~t, U.S. ~ILED JAN 15 2010 ~bupreme ~eurt nf the i~tniteb ~btate~ VOLVO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NORTH AMERICA, INC., Petitioner, V. ISAAC ROSE, PEGGY H. KNOX, JOSEPH E. HENDERSON,

More information

Case 3:16-cv SMR-HCA Document 38 Filed 03/27/18 Page 1 of 17

Case 3:16-cv SMR-HCA Document 38 Filed 03/27/18 Page 1 of 17 Case 3:16-cv-00119-SMR-HCA Document 38 Filed 03/27/18 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA DAVENPORT DIVISION MARTIN BEALE, SR., ROBERT GARROW, ) Case No.

More information

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DIVISION OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DIVISION OF NEW YORK Steven C. Powell (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) POWELL MURPHY, PLLC 322 N. Old Woodward Birmingham, MI 48009 Telephone: (248) 723-4390 Facsimile: (248) 646-3380 Email: scpowell@powellmurphylaw.com UNITED STATES

More information

ERISA Causes of Action *

ERISA Causes of Action * 1 ERISA Causes of Action * ERISA authorizes a variety of causes of action to remedy violations of the statute, to enforce the terms of a benefit plan, or to provide other relief to a plan, its participants

More information

ERISA Litigation. ERISA Statute Fundamentals. What is ERISA, and where is the ERISA statute located? What is an ERISA plan?

ERISA Litigation. ERISA Statute Fundamentals. What is ERISA, and where is the ERISA statute located? What is an ERISA plan? ERISA Litigation Our expert attorneys have substantial experience representing third-party administrators, insurers, plans, plan sponsors, and employers in an array of ERISA litigation and benefits-related

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 09-4001 KARL SCHMIDT UNISIA, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE,

More information

No IN THE. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

No IN THE. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit No. 13-1010 IN THE M&G POLYMERS USA, LLC, et al., v. HOBERT FREEL TACKETT et al., Petitioners, Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit BRIEF OF GOLDSTEIN

More information

MEWAs Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA): A Guide to Federal and State Regulation

MEWAs Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA): A Guide to Federal and State Regulation MEWAs Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA): A Guide to Federal and State Regulation U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration

More information

Philip Dix v. Total Petrochemicals USA Inc Pension Plan

Philip Dix v. Total Petrochemicals USA Inc Pension Plan 2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-30-2013 Philip Dix v. Total Petrochemicals USA Inc Pension Plan Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

More information

Attorneys for General Motors Retirees Association UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Chapter 11 Case No.

Attorneys for General Motors Retirees Association UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Chapter 11 Case No. Hearing Date: June 25, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. (Eastern Time) Neil A. Goteiner (NG 1644) Dean M. Gloster (Pro Hac Vice Application Pending) Nan E. Joesten (Pro Hac Vice Application Pending) FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL

More information

Target Date Funds Platform Investment Options

Target Date Funds Platform Investment Options Target Date Funds Platform Investment Options The Evolving Tension Between Property Rights and Union Access Rights The California Experience By: Ted Scott and Sara B. Kalis, Littler Mendelson Kim Zeldin,

More information

ERISA Overpayments Claims & Defenses

ERISA Overpayments Claims & Defenses ERISA Overpayments Claims & Defenses AIDS Legal Referral Panel November 14, 2018 MCLE Training Kirsten Scott Renaker Hasselman Scott, LLP 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 944 San Francisco, CA 94104 415-653-1733

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 12a0338p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT KENNETH WITMER; JOSEPH OLEX; RALPH W. WILLIAMSON; EDWARD

More information

Stakes Are High For ERISA Fiduciaries

Stakes Are High For ERISA Fiduciaries Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Stakes Are High For ERISA Fiduciaries Law360, New

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus

More information

Case No (Fire Fighter Vincent DiBona's health insurance benefits) OPINION AND AWARD

Case No (Fire Fighter Vincent DiBona's health insurance benefits) OPINION AND AWARD AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION In the Matter of the Arbitration X between PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION OF NASSAU COUNTY, LOCAL 1588, laff and VILLAGE OF GARDEN CITY Case No. 01-17-0005-1878

More information

Rosann Delso v. Trustees of Ret Plan Hourly Em

Rosann Delso v. Trustees of Ret Plan Hourly Em 2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-7-2009 Rosann Delso v. Trustees of Ret Plan Hourly Em Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No.

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Nos. 10-2361 & 10-2362 MELISSA J. REDDINGER and SCOTT LEFEBVRE, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, SENA SEVERANCE PAY PLAN and NEWPAGE WISCONSIN SYSTEM,

More information

MEWAs. Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA): A Guide to Federal and State Regulation

MEWAs. Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA): A Guide to Federal and State Regulation MEWAs Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA): A Guide to Federal and State Regulation U.S. Department of Labor Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT John B. Crawley, for himself, : Ann Crawley and Jean Crawley : : v. : No. 3:03cv734 (JBA) : Oxford Health Plans, Inc. : Ruling on Motion to Remand to

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION RICHARD BARNES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:13-cv-0068-DGK ) HUMANA, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER GRANTING DISMISSAL

More information

Pegram v. Herdrich, 90 days later By Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich

Pegram v. Herdrich, 90 days later By Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich Pegram v. Herdrich, 90 days later By Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich More than a third of all Americans receive their healthcare through employersponsored managed care plans; that is, through plans subject to ERISA.

More information

DC: AVNET, INC. VOLUNTARY EMPLOYEE SEVERANCE PLAN

DC: AVNET, INC. VOLUNTARY EMPLOYEE SEVERANCE PLAN DC: 4069808-3 AVNET, INC. VOLUNTARY EMPLOYEE SEVERANCE PLAN Avnet, Inc. Voluntary Employee Severance Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction... 1 Eligibility... 2 Eligible Employees... 2 Circumstances Resulting

More information

THE LEGAL STATUS OF PENSION AND RETIREE MEDICAL BENEFITS FOR MARYLAND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES

THE LEGAL STATUS OF PENSION AND RETIREE MEDICAL BENEFITS FOR MARYLAND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES THE LEGAL STATUS OF PENSION AND RETIREE MEDICAL BENEFITS FOR MARYLAND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES Published by The Maryland Public Policy Institute One Research Court, Suite 450 Rockville, Maryland 20850 240.686.3510

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HETTA MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION April 28, 2005 9:00 a.m. v No. 251822 Macomb Circuit Court CLARKE A. MOORE, Deceased, by the ESTATE LC No. 98-003538-DO

More information

The Visteon Decision: Third Circuit Expands Section 1114 Protections to Terminable-at-Will Retiree Benefit Plans. September/October 2010

The Visteon Decision: Third Circuit Expands Section 1114 Protections to Terminable-at-Will Retiree Benefit Plans. September/October 2010 The Visteon Decision: Third Circuit Expands Section 1114 Protections to Terminable-at-Will Retiree Benefit Plans September/October 2010 Joseph M. Witalec On July 13, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Index No x.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Index No x. Case 1:18-cv-06448 Document 1 Filed 07/17/18 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Index No. 18-6448 ---------------------------------------------------------x VINCENT

More information

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND Melvin R. Hughes, Jr., Judge. This appeal is from an order removing George B.

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND Melvin R. Hughes, Jr., Judge. This appeal is from an order removing George B. Present: All the Justices GEORGE B. LITTLE, TRUSTEE OPINION BY v. Record No. 941475 CHIEF JUSTICE HARRY L. CARRICO June 9, 1995 WILLIAM S. WARD, JR., ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. CNH INDUSTRIAL N.V., et al.,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. CNH INDUSTRIAL N.V., et al., Reese et al v. CNH America, L. L. C. Doc. 445 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JACK REESE, et al., vs. Plaintiffs, CNH INDUSTRIAL N.V., et al., Civil Action No.

More information

Case 3:11-cv WGY Document 168 Filed 01/10/13 Page 1 of 53 IN THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Case 3:11-cv WGY Document 168 Filed 01/10/13 Page 1 of 53 IN THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Case 3:11-cv-00282-WGY Document 168 Filed 01/10/13 Page 1 of 53 IN THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT HEALTHCARE STRATEGIES, INC., Plan Administrator of the Healthcare Strategies,

More information

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

Fourteenth Court of Appeals Affirmed and Opinion filed August 1, 2017. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-16-00263-CV RON POUNDS, Appellant V. LIBERTY LLOYDS OF TEXAS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the 215th District

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Allstate Life Insurance Company, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 89 F.R. 1997 : Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Argued: December 9, 2009 Respondent : BEFORE: HONORABLE

More information

Discharge Under the Code for ERISA "Fiduciaries"

Discharge Under the Code for ERISA Fiduciaries Discharge Under the Code for ERISA "Fiduciaries" Devin Sullivan, J.D. Candidate 2010 The Bankruptcy Code ( Code ) provides debtors with relief from many of their outstanding debts. However, even under

More information

Case 3:16-cv JPG-SCW Document 33 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #379 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case 3:16-cv JPG-SCW Document 33 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #379 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Case 3:16-cv-00040-JPG-SCW Document 33 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #379 CAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS v. Plaintiff, Case

More information

Case 1:18-cv AMD-RLM Document 1 Filed 07/02/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1

Case 1:18-cv AMD-RLM Document 1 Filed 07/02/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1 Case 1:18-cv-03806-AMD-RLM Document 1 Filed 07/02/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------- ZISSY HOLCZLER

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D June 20, 2008 No. 07-40477 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk JUDY NICHOLS, Individually and

More information

Mark Matthews v. EI DuPont de Nemours & Co

Mark Matthews v. EI DuPont de Nemours & Co 2017 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-16-2017 Mark Matthews v. EI DuPont de Nemours & Co Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2017

More information

U.S. Supreme Court Considering Fiduciary Responsibility For 401(k) Plan Company Stock Funds and Other Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP)

U.S. Supreme Court Considering Fiduciary Responsibility For 401(k) Plan Company Stock Funds and Other Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP) Fiduciary Responsibility For Funds and Other Employee Andrew Irving Area Senior Vice President and Area Counsel The Supreme Court of the United States is poised to enter the debate over the standards of

More information

David Hatchigian v. International Brotherhood of E

David Hatchigian v. International Brotherhood of E 2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-24-2013 David Hatchigian v. International Brotherhood of E Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Trustees of the Ohio Bricklayers Health & Welfare Fund et al v. VIP Restoration, Inc. et al Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Trustees of Ohio Bricklayers

More information

v No Macomb Circuit Court

v No Macomb Circuit Court S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S ROBERT ROHRER and THERESA ROHRER, Plaintiff-Appellees, UNPUBLISHED October 30, 2018 v No. 338224 Macomb Circuit Court CITY OF EASTPOINTE, LC No.

More information

ALI-ABA Course of Study ERISA Litigation. May 11-13, 2006 Boston, Massachusetts. Class Actions Under ERISA. Study Outline and Presentation Slides

ALI-ABA Course of Study ERISA Litigation. May 11-13, 2006 Boston, Massachusetts. Class Actions Under ERISA. Study Outline and Presentation Slides 237 ALI-ABA Course of Study ERISA Litigation May 11-13, 2006 Boston, Massachusetts Class Actions Under ERISA Study Outline and Presentation Slides By Thomas S. Gigot Christa D. Haas Groom Law Group, Chartered

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION Sand-Smith v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston Doc. 47 THERESA SAND-SMITH, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION Plaintiff, CV 17-0004-BLG-SPW FILED

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Case: 15-2382 Document: 71 Filed: 08/08/2017 Page: 1 No. 15-2382 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT JACK REESE; FRANCES ELAINE PIDDE; JAMES CICHANOFSKY; ROGER MILLER; GEORGE NOWLIN,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS POLARIS HOME FUNDING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 28, 2010 v No. 295069 Kent Circuit Court AMERA MORTGAGE CORPORATION, LC No. 08-009667-CK Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYEES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, UNPUBLISHED January 27, 2004 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 242967 Oakland Circuit Court EXECUTIVE RISK INDEMNITY,

More information

PRESBYTERIAN HOMES & SERVICES SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS for the TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY PLAN and EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN

PRESBYTERIAN HOMES & SERVICES SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS for the TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY PLAN and EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN PRESBYTERIAN HOMES & SERVICES SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS for the TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY PLAN and EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN (please fold in half so this page is the cover) PRESBYTERIAN

More information

ORDINANCE 1670 City of Southfield

ORDINANCE 1670 City of Southfield ORDINANCE 1670 City of Southfield AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14 TITLE 1 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTHFIELD TITLED THE RETIREE HEALTH CARE BENEFIT PLAN AND TRUST. The City of Southfield Ordains: Section

More information

NW 2d Wis: Court of Appeals 2004

NW 2d Wis: Court of Appeals 2004 Web Images Videos Maps News Shopping Gmail more! 689 NW2d 911 Search Scholar Preferences Sign in Advanced Scholar Search Read this case How cited Degenhardt-Wallace v. HOSKINS, KALNINS, 689 NW 2d 911 -

More information

No. 47,320-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * Versus * * * * * * * * * *

No. 47,320-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * Versus * * * * * * * * * * Judgment rendered September 20, 2012. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, LSA-CCP. No. 47,320-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * RHONDA

More information

Henry M. Jackson Foundation. Defined Contribution Retirement Plan

Henry M. Jackson Foundation. Defined Contribution Retirement Plan Henry M. Jackson Foundation Defined Contribution Retirement Plan SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION This document provides each Participant with a description of the Foundation's Defined Contribution Retirement

More information

Second and Fifth Circuits Split on Who is Entitled to Whistleblower Protection Under Dodd-Frank

Second and Fifth Circuits Split on Who is Entitled to Whistleblower Protection Under Dodd-Frank H Reprinted with permission from the Employee Relations LAW JOURNAL Vol. 41, No. 4 Spring 2016 SPLIT CIRCUITS Second and Fifth Circuits Split on Who is Entitled to Whistleblower Protection Under Dodd-Frank

More information

I.B.E.W. LOCAL NO (K) PLAN

I.B.E.W. LOCAL NO (K) PLAN I.B.E.W. LOCAL NO. 8 401(K) PLAN SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION (Effective June 23, 2003) June 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE I PARTICIPATION IN THE PLAN Am I eligible to participate in the Plan?...1 When am

More information

IRS Technical Advice Memorandums TAM on Section 410 Minimum Participation Standards

IRS Technical Advice Memorandums TAM on Section 410 Minimum Participation Standards IRS Technical Advice Memorandums TAM on Section 410 Minimum Participation Standards Document Date: Jul. 28, 1999 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE National Office Technical Advice Memorandum Manager, EP Determinations

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DR. CARL BERNOFSKY CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff NO. 98:-1577 VERSUS SECTION "C"(5) TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION & THE ADMINISTRATORS

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Carolina Care Plan, Inc., ) Civil Action No.:4:06-00792-RBH ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) O R D E R ) Auddie Brown Auto

More information

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1106 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. BALTIMORE COUNTY, and Plaintiff - Appellee, Defendant Appellant, AMERICAN FEDERATION

More information

N.E.C.A. LOCAL NO. 145 I.B.E.W. PENSION PLAN SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION

N.E.C.A. LOCAL NO. 145 I.B.E.W. PENSION PLAN SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION N.E.C.A. LOCAL NO. 145 I.B.E.W. PENSION PLAN SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION September 1, 2014 N.E.C.A. LOCAL NO. 145 I.B.E.W. PENSION FUND 1700 52 nd Ave, Suite B Moline, Illinois 61265 Telephone: (309) 764-8080

More information

Burlington Resources Inc. Pension Plan Final Average Earnings Participants

Burlington Resources Inc. Pension Plan Final Average Earnings Participants Burlington Resources Inc. Pension Plan Final Average Earnings Participants HOLBROOK, ARIZONA The Petrified Forest is known for its fossils, especially fallen trees that lived in the Late Triassic, about

More information

v No LC No NF INSURANCE COMPANY, v No LC No NF INSURANCE COMPANY,

v No LC No NF INSURANCE COMPANY, v No LC No NF INSURANCE COMPANY, S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S VHS OF MICHIGAN, INC., doing business as DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER, UNPUBLISHED October 19, 2017 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 332448 Wayne Circuit Court

More information

Follow this and additional works at:

Follow this and additional works at: 2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-13-2008 Ward v. Avaya Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-3246 Follow this and additional

More information

CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION TRUST OF GREATER ST. LOUIS

CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION TRUST OF GREATER ST. LOUIS CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION TRUST OF GREATER ST. LOUIS Summary Plan Description 2357 59th St. St. Louis, MO 63110 314-644-2777 1-800-489-0228 May 1, 2011 Edition Dear Plan Participant, We are pleased

More information

Case3:09-cv MMC Document22 Filed09/08/09 Page1 of 8

Case3:09-cv MMC Document22 Filed09/08/09 Page1 of 8 Case:0-cv-0-MMC Document Filed0/0/0 Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 United States District Court For the Northern District of California NICOLE GLAUS,

More information

PENSION PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF SAINT MARY S HOSPITAL CORPORATION SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION

PENSION PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF SAINT MARY S HOSPITAL CORPORATION SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION PENSION PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF SAINT MARY S HOSPITAL CORPORATION SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION PENSION PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF SAINT MARY'S HOSPITAL CORPORATION SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION INTRODUCTION This booklet

More information

09/27/10 - Health Reform and ERISA

09/27/10 - Health Reform and ERISA Page 1 of 12 09/27/10 - Health Reform and ERISA By Sara Rosenbaum Background Overview Enacted in 1974 with the overarching aim of protecting workers' pension plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security

More information

T HE HCSC E M P L O Y E E S P E N S I O N P L A N

T HE HCSC E M P L O Y E E S P E N S I O N P L A N T HE HCSC E M P L O Y E E S P E N S I O N P L A N E F F E C T I V E D A T E : J A N U A R Y 1, 2015 P U B L I S H D A T E : M A Y 1, 2 0 1 6 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S INTRODUCTION 3 IMPORTANT TERMS

More information

Summary Plan Description. for the. Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. Hourly Retirement Plan. July 1, 2009

Summary Plan Description. for the. Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. Hourly Retirement Plan. July 1, 2009 Summary Plan Description for the Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. Hourly Retirement Plan July 1, 2009 eeak i Table of Contents Subject Page Introduction... 1 Participation Freeze...1 Benefit Freeze...1

More information

DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY ERISA ENTERS THE SPOTLIGHT

DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY ERISA ENTERS THE SPOTLIGHT DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY ERISA ENTERS THE SPOTLIGHT JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN * SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP DECEMBER 9, 2004 Directors of public companies and their advisers have long understood

More information

VOLUNTARY LABOR ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE., Arbitrator Lee Hornberger Employer. DECISION AND AWARD

VOLUNTARY LABOR ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE., Arbitrator Lee Hornberger Employer. DECISION AND AWARD In the Matter of:, VOLUNTARY LABOR ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE Union, Class Action/Layoff-Recall and FMCS, Arbitrator Lee Hornberger Employer. For the City: 1. APPEARANCES

More information

The Impact of Dudenhoeffer on Lower Court Stock-Drop Cases

The Impact of Dudenhoeffer on Lower Court Stock-Drop Cases The Impact of Dudenhoeffer on Lower Court Stock-Drop Cases ALYSSA OHANIAN The Supreme Court recently held in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 134 S. Ct. 2459 (2014), that employer stock ownership plan

More information

HEALTHIER TOGETHER PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS

HEALTHIER TOGETHER PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Healthier Together Plan January 1, 2016 HEALTHIER TOGETHER PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Healthier Together Plan Highlights... 1 Introduction... 2 Who Is Eligible?... 2 How Do I Enroll?... 2 How Does Plan Coverage

More information

Burlington Resources Inc. Pension Plan

Burlington Resources Inc. Pension Plan Burlington Resources Inc. Pension Plan Title VI of the ConocoPhillips Retirement Plan Pension Benefits for Final Average Earnings (FAE) Participants Effective Jan. 1, 2015 Burlington Resources Inc. Pension

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION Deer Oaks Office Park Owners Association v. State Farm Lloyds Doc. 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION DEER OAKS OFFICE PARK OWNERS ASSOCIATION, CIVIL

More information

Background Memorandum on State Laws and ERISA Preemption Prepared by Groom Law Group

Background Memorandum on State Laws and ERISA Preemption Prepared by Groom Law Group July 27, 2007 Background Memorandum on State Laws and ERISA Preemption Prepared by Groom Law Group As Congress is considering how to address the problem of the working uninsured, one of the questions being

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No Case: 14-1628 Document: 003112320132 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 14-1628 FREEDOM MEDICAL SUPPLY INC, Individually and On Behalf of All Others

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States NO. 13-1010 In the Supreme Court of the United States M&G POLYMERS USA, LLC, et al., Petitioners, v. HOBERT FREEL TACKETT, et al., Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court

More information

ATLANTA AUSTIN GENEVA HOUSTON LONDON NEW YORK SACRAMENTO WASHINGTON, DC

ATLANTA AUSTIN GENEVA HOUSTON LONDON NEW YORK SACRAMENTO WASHINGTON, DC By Stephany Olsen LeGrand Institute of Energy Law, 5th Oilfield Services Conference - October, 2015 Unsurprisingly, serious incidents in the oil and gas industry, specifically those resulting in harm to

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS NORTH SHORE INJURY CENTER, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 21, 2017 v No. 330124 Wayne Circuit Court GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 14-008704-NF

More information

Case 1:07-cv DAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/2007 Page 1 of C. Defendants. X. Class Action Complaint

Case 1:07-cv DAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/2007 Page 1 of C. Defendants. X. Class Action Complaint JUDGL- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK GEOFFREY OSBERG ATTS Case 1:07-cv-01358-DAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/2007 Page 1 of 23 07 C X r FEB 2?007 U.S.D.0 t N CAShiER5 On behalf

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI HATTIESBURG DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-232-KS-MTP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI HATTIESBURG DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-232-KS-MTP Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Kavanaugh Supply, LLC et al Doc. 42 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI HATTIESBURG DIVISION NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE

More information

v No Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 USC 1001 et seq., precludes a

v No Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 USC 1001 et seq., precludes a Opinion Chief Justice: Clifford W. Taylor Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan Justices: Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit KELLY L. STEPHENSON, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent. 2012-3074 Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board

More information

Burlington Resources Inc. Pension Plan (Title VI of the ConocoPhillips Retirement Plan)

Burlington Resources Inc. Pension Plan (Title VI of the ConocoPhillips Retirement Plan) Burlington Resources Inc. Pension Plan (Title VI of the ConocoPhillips Retirement Plan) Pension Benefits For Final Average Earnings (FAE) Participants Burlington Resources Inc. Pension Plan (Title VI of

More information

DCF Analysis: A Commercially Reasonable Determinant of Value for Liquidation of Mortgage Loans in Repo Transaction.

DCF Analysis: A Commercially Reasonable Determinant of Value for Liquidation of Mortgage Loans in Repo Transaction. DCF Analysis: A Commercially Reasonable Determinant of Value for Liquidation of Mortgage Loans in Repo Transaction July/August 2011 Benjamin Rosenblum In a case of first impression, the Third Circuit Court

More information

Employee Relations. Stuck in the Middle: A Cautionary Tale About Beneficiary Designation Forms. Anne E. Moran

Employee Relations. Stuck in the Middle: A Cautionary Tale About Beneficiary Designation Forms. Anne E. Moran VOL. 34, NO. 4 SPRING 2009 Employee Relations L A W J O U R N A L Employee Benefits Stuck in the Middle: A Cautionary Tale About Beneficiary Designation Forms Anne E. Moran Recent developments in the United

More information

CIGNA Corp. v. Amara What the Decision Means for Plan Sponsors

CIGNA Corp. v. Amara What the Decision Means for Plan Sponsors CIGNA Corp. v. Amara What the Decision Means for Plan Sponsors American Benefits Council Benefits Briefing Webinar July 22nd 2:00 3:30 p.m. Lynn Dudley, Senior Vice President, Policy Lars Golumbic, Groom

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 JOANN C. VIRGI, Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOHN G. VIRGI, Appellee No. 1550 WDA 2012 Appeal from the Order September

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 17-3524 ESTATE OF LINDA FAYE JONES, et al., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, CHILDREN S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH SYSTEM INCORPORATED PENSION PLAN,

More information