BLAIR BRININGER, P.C. SEPTEMBER 2000 ERISA CASE SUMMARIES

© 2000 Brininger LTD All rights reserved.

Please read our Copyright Notice and Disclaimers before you use this resource.

Iron Workers' Local No. 25 Pension Fund v. MCS General Contractors, Inc., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 22688 (5^th Cir. Aug. 30, 2000) (unpublished)-The CBA required defendants to make contributions to the funds for "each employee covered by [the] Agreement." Plaintiffs asserted that the CBA required defendants to contribute for all covered work including covered work that pre-apprentices performed. The Court found for the plaintiffs. See detailed analysis.

Sixth Circuit

Graham v Western Kentucky Navigation, Inc.,2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 22250 (6^th Cir. Aug. 23, 2000) (unpublished)- The Sixth Circuit used extrinsic evidence to deny a claim for medical benefits. See detailed analysis.

Bradney v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours And Company, Pension And Retirement Plan, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 21514 (6^th Cir. Aug. 18, 2000) (unpublished) -The Sixth Circuit did not believe that the District Court was "clearly erroneous" in its finding that DuPont managers did not "seriously consider" implementation of the new enhanced retirement plan before May 14, 1993. See detailed analysis.

Morgan v. Sun Life Of Canada, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 21243 (6^th Cir. Aug 16, 2000) (unpublished) -Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment affirming the decision to discontinue her disability benefits for failing to provide medical evidence of her continuing disability. See detailed analysis.

Seventh Circuit

Kreimeier v. Interstate Power Company, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 22401 (7^th Cir. Aug. 28, 2000) (unpublished)-ERISA permits suits to recover benefits against only the plan. Riordan v. Commonwealth Edison Co.,128 F.3d 549, 551 (7^th Cir. 1997). Neither Interstate nor SISCO was a proper defendant. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Interstate since it was not the proper defendant. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of SISCO for the same reason. A district court may sua sponte enter summary judgment in favor of a non-moving defendant if the motion raised by the first defendant is equally effective in barring the claim against the other defendant, and the plaintiff had an adequate opportunity to oppose the motion. See detailed analysis.

Krueger International, Inc. v. Blank, 225 F.3d 806 (7^th Cir. 2000)-ERISA does not preempt the terms of a stockholder's agreement. See detailed analysis.

Eighth Circuit

Wylie v. MacMillan Bloedel Packaging, Inc., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 18311 (8^th Cir. Aug. 1, 2000)(unpublished)-District court properly interpreted provisions of the ERISA plan concerning years of service.

Burds v. Union Pac. Corp., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 21050 (8^th Cir. Aug. 18, 2000)(unpublished) - District Court was correct in dismissing plaintiffs' claims without prejudice for failure to exhaust. See detailed analysis.

Cavegn v. Twin City Pipe Trades Pension Plan, 223 F.3d 827 (8^th Cir. 2000)-District court erred in finding ERISA action was barred by Minnesota's two-year statute of limitations, as Plan administrators specifically informed plaintiff that his second application for benefits was being treated as a new application, and the time for filing this action ran from the denial of this second application rather than from denial of the initial application; court would not consider merits of the claim; matter remanded to the district court for further proceedings on the merits. See detailed analysis.

Ninth Circuit

Del Priore v. Citibank (Nevada), N.A., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 21506 (9^th Cir. Aug. 22, 2000) (unpublished)-Del Priore argued that the district court should not have granted summary judgment to Citibank on her claim for retaliatory discharge on account of filing for State Industrial Insurance System benefits. The Ninth Circuit agreed that ERISA does not preempt this claim. See detailed analysis.

Tenth Circuit

Eleventh Circuit

United Food and Commercial Workers Unions, Employers Health And Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.,223 F.3d 1271 (11^th Cir. 2000)-Plaintiff asserted that, as a result of Defendants' acts, many participants became afflicted with tobacco-related illnesses and that some died from such illnesses. Plaintiff, consequently, incurred substantial losses (1) because of Plaintiff's obligation to provide medical treatment to those plan participants and (2) because of reduced contributions from those plan participants. Plaintiffs sought monetary damages for those losses.

The Eleventh Circuit concluded that, under Alabama's law of proximate cause, Plaintiff’s claims must fail. See detailed analysis.