Please read our Copyright Notice and Disclaimers before you use this resource.
MORAIS v. CENTRAL BEVERAGE CORPORATION UNION EMPLOYEES' SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 2219 (1st Cir. Feb. 11, 1999)-First Circuit affirmed the district court's granting of summary judgment to the plan holding that the settlement agreement signed by the plaintiff barred any claims for benefits.
GEO. KNIGHT & COMPANY, INC. v. WATSON WYATT & COMPANY, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 2762 (1st Cir. Feb. 22, 1999)-Court affirmed granting of Defendant's motion on statute of limitations grounds. Defendant, in 1990, advised Plaintiff to amend a defined benefit plan. As a result of the amendment, the plan was under funded. In 1996 Plaintiff's accountant informed Plaintiff that the plan was under funded. Plaintiff sued. District court determined that since the annual actuarial valuation report from 1991 forward showed the plan to be under funded thus the Plaintiff had notice of the under funding.
BENNETT v. CONRAIL MATCHED SAVINGS PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 2713 (3rd Cir. Feb. 23, 1999)- Because of the tender offer for Conrail Stock, the ESOP had a surplus. The plan administrator elected to distribute the surplus to persons employed by Conrail in 1996 through 1998. The Plaintiffs were former employees who left the employ of Conrail before 1996. The Third Circuit affirmed the district court's granting of the plan's 12(b)(6) motion. The Third Circuit held that, although there was a partial termination the terminated employees received everything to which they were entitled. That is their accrued benefits-account balance. The Third Circuit also determined the plan's method of distributing the surplus did not breach any ERISA fiduciary duty since amending the plan was not a fiduciary function.
MCWILLIAMS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 2047 (4th Cir. Feb. 11, 1999) (unpublished)-Court affirmed the district court's granting of summary judgment in favor of defendant. Fourth Circuit found that plaintiff's argument for reversal that the case should have been adjudicated in state court had no merit. (Defendant timely removed the case.) Fourth Circuit also determined that the proper standard of review was abuse of discretion. Even though the plan in effect at the time plaintiff became disabled did not grant discretion, Fourth Circuit, citing Bolton v. Construction Laborers' Pension Trust, 56 F.3d 1055, 1058 (9th Cir. 1995) in holding that the plan in effect at the time the benefits are denied controls.
Fox v. Fox, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 2104 (4th Cir. Feb. 12, 1999)-Court affirmed the district court's determination that the defendant ex-husband/plan administrator acted unreasonable in denying that a domestic relations order was a qualified domestic relations order. The district court noted that that because of the personal animosity between the parties and Mr. Fox's personal stake in the outcome, Mr. Fox's ERISA determination should be subjected to closer scrutiny.
BAKER v. PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 2600 (4th Cir. Feb. 19, 1999)- Court affirmed district court's granting of summary judgment. Plaintiff, while driving intoxicated, suffered sever injuries when he caused an accident killing another driver. Plaintiff pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter, a felony under North Carolina law.
Plaintiff claimed $179.295 in medical benefits for the injuries he suffered in the accident. Provident denied the claim citing the plan provision which denied medical benefits for injuries incurred while voluntarily committing a felony.
HAGER v. NATIONSBANK NA , 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 2876 (5th Cir. Mar. 5, 1999)-Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's granting of a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The following language in the letter denying plaintiff's claim following review does not require plaintiff to submit additional information. The language is as follows: "If Ms. Hager has any additional information to support her claim, she may file an appeal to the Committee for further review. Attached is an appeals form. Any appeal must be submitted within 90 days of the receipt of this letter and should provide documentation to support her position. If you need any additional information from us to assist you in preparation of any appeal, please let us know."
SPANGLER v. ALTEC INTERNATIONAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 2114 (7th Cir. Feb. 9, 1999) (unpublished)-Plaintiffs claim that Altec misrepresented their pensions to get them to work for Altec in 1985 or 1986. District Court granted summary judgment to defendants holding the ERISA violation, if any, arose when the plaintiffs began working with defendants. Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Montgomery v. John Deere & Company, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 3041 (8th Cir. Feb. 26, 1999)-Court affirmed district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1140 [ERISA § 510]. Plaintiff alleged that defendant fired him because plaintiff turned down defendant's offer of early retirement. Eighth Circuit said that the fact a year passed between plaintiff's refusal to take defendant's offer of early retirement and plaintiff's termination defeated plaintiff's claim of a casual connection.
Plaintiff had brought numerous claims of employment discrimination and whistle-blowing. Court affirmed grant of summary judgment to defendant on these claims also.
I can fully understand plaintiff's frustration. He was a loyal employee who performed his job for over twenty-eight years. Why was he suddenly discharged as he neared retirement age? Unsure of the reason, his lawyer obviously "shot-gunned" his claims-not knowing which one would work. In other words, the plaintiff "protests too much." The plaintiffs multiplicity of claims against the defendant backfired, not only weakening but defeating some of his legitimate claims. (Judge Lay concurring)
WRITERS' GUILD-INDUSTRY HEALTH FUND v. VARDHAN, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 2074 (9th Cir. Feb. 2, 1999) (unpublished)-Ninth Circuit affirmed district court's granting of summary judgment against Vardahn for failing to exhaust administrative remedies. Ninth Circuit also affirmed denial of attorneys' fees to Writers' Guild
DRUHAN v. AMERICAN MUTUAL LIFE,1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 1826 Feb. 10, 1999)-After district court denied plaintiff's motion to remand, plaintiff filed "Request and Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment." The district court treated this as a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice and dismissed plaintiff's claims with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed claiming that she only wanted to get an interlocutory appeal of the court's refusal to remand the case. Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal claiming that it did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Eleventh Circuit noted that other circuits have adopted a rule similar to that proposed by the appellant in this case, namely, that a plaintiff may appeal from a voluntary dismissal with prejudice if the dismissal was sought for the sole purpose of expediting review of a prior order that had effectively eliminated the plaintiff's claim. See Trevino-Barton v. Pittsburgh Nat'l Bank, 919 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir.1990); Laczay v. Ross Adhesives, 855 F.2d 351, 355 (6th Cir.1988); Empire Volkswagen, Inc. v. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp., 814 F.2d 90, 94-95 (2d Cir.1987); see also John's Insulation, Inc. v. L. Addison & Assocs., Inc., 156 F.3d 101, 107 (1st Cir.1998) (dicta); Himler v. Comprehensive Care Corp., 993 F.2d 1537 (4th Cir.1993) (unpublished opinion).
