Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wells, 213 F.3d 398 (7^th Cir. 2000)- In this appeal, a plan administrator brought suit against a beneficiary Wells, for reimbursement of funds she recovered in a settlement of a auto accident tort action against a third party.  Wells refused, claiming that the plan should contribute a pro rata share of her attorneys' fees, since she incurred the attorneys’ fees for the plan's benefit as well as her own.

            As an initial matter, Judge Posner noted that the court "must consider whether the relief sought by the plan is equitable, because that is the only type of relief that ERISA authorizes a fiduciary to obtain."  At first glance, this suit involved a claim for money due and owing under a contract—an action at law.  But, since, in this case, Wells' lawyer wrongfully intercepted the funds pending litigation, the plan's action for return of the money was a classic case of equity.

            Here, this court found that the plan owed Wells a pro rata share of attorneys fees. The plan had argued otherwise on the basis that the plan sponsor had passed an amendment which explicitly excluded plan payment for any part of attorneys' fees.  The court found the Plan's argument "astonishing" since, apparently, the plan sponsor passed the amendment after Wells' settlement.  This court declined, however, to accept Wells' argument that she also was entitled to a sharing of the reduction of her claim in the settlement by 25 percent to reflect her comparative fault.  Common-fund principles provide no such relief.