Please read our Copyright Notice and Disclaimers before you use this resource.
Rombach v. Nestle USA, Inc., 211 F.3d 190 (2nd Cir. 2000)-Rombach argued that Nestle USA, Inc. violated 29 U.S.C. §1054(g) by negotiating a significant reduction in disability benefits without following the procedures of ERISA § 1082(c)(8). This court found that §1054(g) applies only to "pension plans," not "welfare plans." See detailed analysis.
In the Matter of Paris v. Iron Workers Trust Fund, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 6883 (4th Cir. Apr. 17, 2000) (unpublished)- In a per curiam opinion, this court declined to adopt the make-whole doctrine as a matter of federal common law under ERISA, and further declined, on the basis of pre-emption, to certify the question to the Maryland Court of Appeals. See detailed analysis.
Myers-Garrison v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., 210 F.3d 425 (5th Cir. 2000)-Employees of Johnson & Johnson brought a nationwide class action, alleging that Johnson & Johnson reduced their benefits in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), which protects employees from reductions to accrued benefits. Johnson & Johnson had opted to take advantage of the Retirement Protection Act, passed in 1994, which allowed employers to begin using the "GATT rate" rather than the PBGC rate as their discount rate. This court found that in making the transition to using GATT rates, Johnson & Johnson ran afoul of Treasury regulations concerning which month's GATT rate employers could use. See detailed analysis.
Clift v. Connecticut General Life Insur. Co., 210 F.3d 268 (5th Cir. 2000)-This court declined to set forth a rule that someone cannot effect a waiver in a divorce decree of one's beneficiary interest in a life insurance policy governed by ERISA without specifically listing the "proceeds," "beneficiary interest," or any such "magic words." See detailed analysis.
Copeland Oaks v. Haupt, 209 F.3d 811 (6th Cir. 2000); 2000 FED App. 0125P (6th Cir.)-This court affirmed the district court's application of the "make-whole" rule of federal common law, which requires that an insured be made whole before an insurer can enforce its right to subrogation under ERISA unless there is a clear contractual provision to the contrary. See detailed analysis.
Trustees of the Michigan Laborers' Health Care Fund v. Gibbons, 209 F.3d 587 (6th Cir. 2000); 2000 FED App. 0128P (6th Cir.)-This court reversed the district court's holding that that the Gibbons, doing business as contractor Gibbons Brothers Masonry, were relieved of the obligation to pay several years' worth of unpaid contributions to several employee pension and welfare benefit funds pursuant to collective bargaining agreements with Michigan unions. See detailed analysis.
Coreno v. Baker Material Handling Corporation Pension Plan, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 6482 (6th Cir. April 5, 2000) (unpublished)-This court affirmed the district court's summary judgment against Coreno's claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). See detailed analysis.
Gallegos v. Mt. Sinai Medical Center, 210 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2000)-The district court had agreed with UNUM that Gallegos had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies by not filing for a review of her claim within the 60-day deadline stated in the summary plan. This court held that "estoppel may be applied to preclude the assertion of failure to exhaust administrative remedies as a defense where that failure results from the claimant's reliance on written misrepresentations by the insurer or plan administrator." However, in this case, Gallegos failed to show that she relied to her detriment on any of UNUM's misleading statements in deciding not to pursue an administrative appeal within the 60-day deadline. See detailed analysis.
Deboard v. Woods Research and Development Corporation, 208 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2000)-Former employees filed suit after their employer, Woods Research and Development Corp., reneged on its promise of lifetime medical insurance coverage for employees who elected early retirement during a special window offer ten years earlier. This court affirmed the district court's finding that the plan owed the plaintiff employees continuing medical coverage of the same type that defendants' current employees receive. See Stearns v. NCR Corporation, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7028 (D. Minn. May 17, 2000) discussed in the July 2000 issue of ERISA LITIGATION ALERT. See detailed analysis.
Perrino v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 209 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2000)-This court affirmed the district court's finding that four former employees, who sought termination pay allowances in addition to disability-related pension benefits, had to exhaust grievance and arbitration procedures before filing suit. See detailed analysis.
