CIGNA v. Amara Keeps Surprises Coming


 

For employees in Chicago, your rights under ERISA continue to change as a result of the Supreme Court's recent decision in CIGNA v. Amara. As discussed in an earlier post, ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) cannot be used to claim benefits due but for a breach of fiduciary duty where the plan administrator made a misrepresentation about the plan by failing to disclose a material term in the summary plan description (SPD). The Supreme Court made up for it, though, by expanding the scope of relief under § 502(a)(3), permitting participants to seek reformation of the plan to match what the administrator told participants, or to even recover monetary compensation from the administrator under the "surcharge" theory that has the ERISA community buzzing.

One week after its opinion, the Court overturned another portion of the lower court's ruling, one that denied the employees' request to reinstate the pension plan because CIGNA did not disclose key negative elements of its adopted cash balance plan. Asylim law in Ohio. Now, in addition to following the Court's guidance on fashioning a remedy under § 502(a)(3) pursuant to the Court's May 16th opinion, the lower court will also determine on remand whether that section allows the employees to be reinstated in the previous plan where CIGNA did not comply with an ERISA requirement to disclose all "significant reductions in benefit accruals." ERISA § 204(h).

Essentially, all eyes will be on the lower court in Amara to see how these multiple remedies determinations pan out. If you have experienced any recent changes to your pension plan and believe that you have not been properly notified of the changes, speak with an attorney knowledgeable in ERISA.

Комментарии

Отправить комментарий

Популярные сообщения из этого блога

Why Your Executive Employment Agreement May Reference Dodd-Frank Clawback Policy

Изображение
 Executives in Chicago may be puzzled to begin seeing vague references to new compensation clawback policies in their executive employment agreements. Section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act requires, as a condition of the employer's securities being listed on a national securities exchange or association (such as NYSE, NASDAQ, etc.), if the employer must restate any financial statements because of "material noncompliance" with the securities laws, then the issuer will recoup from any current or former executive officer during the 3 years preceding the date the employer had to restate those financial statements all amounts paid in incentive based compensation that exceeds what would have been paid under the restated financials. Executive Compensation lawyers who advise employers mostly agree the executive employment agreements need to mention the clawback policy. However, the employers' lawyers advise to avoid being specific about the terms of the clawba
Далее...

Don't Forget to Update Your Beneficiary Designations on Employer Sponsored Retirement or Life Insurance Plans

Изображение
  Executives and employees participating in employee benefit plans in Chicago received a reminder this week about why it is important to keep track of your benefit plans' beneficiary designations, and update those designations when appropriate. Many people may think they can enter into binding agreements with others, such as family members or former spouses, about entitlement to or waiver of benefits under an employee benefit plan, like a pension or life insurance. Lawyer office in Ohio . However, if the plan is one covered by ERISA, those agreements, even if part of an agreed court order, will have no bearing on what the benefit plan administrator does with any proceeds if inconsistent with the beneficiary designation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reiterated this point in Jackman Financial Corp. v. Humana Insurance Co., No. 10-2112, Slip Op. (7th Cir. May 31, 2011). In that case, Mr. Torrence was a participant in a group term life insurance policy of
Далее...

Courts Still at Odds over What Language Grants Discretion to an ERISA Plan Administrator

Изображение
  Employees in Chicago that are participants in any employee benefit plans should pay attention to the growing divide among Courts of Appeals over whether "satisfactory to us" is language in a plan sufficient to vest the plan administrator with discretion to interpret plan terms and make benefit determinations. When the administrator has such discretion, a court reviewing the administrator's decision will do so under an abuse of discretion standard--whether the decision was reasonable, not whether it was right. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit joined the ranks of courts in holding such language requiring a participant to provide proof of a loss "satisfactory to us" does not confer discretion on the administrator of the plan. Viera v. Life Insurance Company of North America, No. 10-22810, Slip Op. at 19 (3d Cir. June 10, 2011). Lawyer office in Ohio . The Third Circuit joined the ranks of the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits in holding
Далее...