Fiduciary Liability

: : Seventh Circuit Uses “Dual Hat” Versus “Single Hat” Analysis To Decide State Law Preemption Issues

“The exclusive benefit rule is a cornerstone of ERISA that state law cannot dilute. While ERISA narrowly contemplates parallel liability against the dual-hat director and officer defendants, it preempts further aiding and abetting liability that would impose additional duties on Argent and Stout beyond their exclusive ERISA obligations.” Halperin v. Richards No. 20-2793 (July 28, …

: : Seventh Circuit Uses “Dual Hat” Versus “Single Hat” Analysis To Decide State Law Preemption Issues Read More »

: : Plaintiff FailsTo Show Breach of Fiduciary Duty By Misrepresentation or Omission

The Court now turns to the heart of the present controversy: whether either party is entitled to summary judgment on Ms. Staropoli’s claims that the Benefits Executive breached its fiduciary duties. A fiduciary may breach its duties by “either a misrepresentation or an omission.” In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Med. Benefits ERISA Litig., 579 F.3d …

: : Plaintiff FailsTo Show Breach of Fiduciary Duty By Misrepresentation or Omission Read More »

: : Ninth Circuit Panel Holds Against Insurer On Indemnification Claim

First Reliance cannot maintain a claim for contribution or indemnification against Armani. In Kim v. Fujikawa, the court concluded that 29 U.S.C. § 1109, as referenced in 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2), “cannot be read as providing for an equitable remedy of contribution in favor of a breaching fiduciary.” 871 F.2d 1427, 1432 (9th Cir. 1989) …

: : Ninth Circuit Panel Holds Against Insurer On Indemnification Claim Read More »

: : Fourth Circuit Reinstates Claims Against Claims Administrator and Vendor Based Upon Undisclosed Bundling of Fees

The district court erred in granting summary judgment to Aetna, as Peters produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that Aetna was at least a functional fiduciary under ERISA and breached its corresponding fiduciary duties. Specifically, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Aetna was unjustly enriched when avoiding payment of Optum’s administrative fee …

: : Fourth Circuit Reinstates Claims Against Claims Administrator and Vendor Based Upon Undisclosed Bundling of Fees Read More »

:: ERISA Plan Cannot Rely on Equitable Remedies To Supplement Subrogation Provision

“As an initial matter, the Court notes that this case is somewhat unusual. As stated above, plans often contain reimbursement provisions which expressly entitle them to seek reimbursement from beneficiaries who receive both plan benefits and third-party compensation. Consequently, litigation regarding reimbursement provisions generally centers around questions of application (i.e., whether recovery should be limited …

:: ERISA Plan Cannot Rely on Equitable Remedies To Supplement Subrogation Provision Read More »

:: Court Imposes Personal Liability And Attorney Fees On Plan Fiduciary For Breach

Derived from these components, the Sixth Circuit has held that an ERISA fiduciary has a duty to “give complete and accurate information in response to participants’ questions.” Drennan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 977 F.2d 246, 251 (6th Cir. 1992). Furthermore, “misleading communications to plan participants regarding plan administration . . . will support a claim …

:: Court Imposes Personal Liability And Attorney Fees On Plan Fiduciary For Breach Read More »

:: Fifth Circuit Holds That ERISA Fiduciary Insurance Coverage Does Not Encompass Alleged COBRA Violations

he relevant Policy provisions, which are expressly described as providing “fiduciary liability coverage,” only insure against claims of “wrongful acts.” The Policy defines “wrongful acts” as  “any breach of the responsibilities, obligations or duties imposed upon fiduciaries of the Sponsored Plan by [ERISA], as amended, . . . or any negligent act, error or omission …

:: Fifth Circuit Holds That ERISA Fiduciary Insurance Coverage Does Not Encompass Alleged COBRA Violations Read More »

:: When Employer Lapses Cost Participants Their Coverage – Wrong Without Remedy?

We share appellant’s concern that her claim exists in a remedy-less “regulatory vacuum” created by ERISA’s broad preemption of state law claims and the Supreme Court’s narrow interpretation of “other appropriate equitable relief.” Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 222, 124 S. Ct. 2488, 159 L. Ed. 2d 312 (2004) (Ginsburg, J., concurring); …

:: When Employer Lapses Cost Participants Their Coverage – Wrong Without Remedy? Read More »

:: Lack Of Due Diligence Results In ERISA Fiduciary Liability For Defaulted Loans

As to the district court’s conclusion that Rodrigues is liable under 29 U.S.C. § 1105 for enabling Hewitt to breach his fiduciary duties, Rodrigues’s only argument on appeal is derivative of the district court’s allegedly erroneous determination that Rodrigues breached his own fiduciary duties. Because we determine that the district court correctly concluded that Rodrigues …

:: Lack Of Due Diligence Results In ERISA Fiduciary Liability For Defaulted Loans Read More »