Ninth Circuit Uncharacteristically Takes the Lead in Limiting Plaintiffs' Rights to Recover for Breach of Fiduciary Duty under ERISA

by Littler
Contact

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized, for the first time, that some forms of equitable relief could lead to an award of a monetary payment for breach of fiduciary duty under section 502(a)(3) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. section 1132(a)(3).1 Although the Supreme Court did not define the elements of each form of relief in detail, it listed three types of equitable relief: surcharge, estoppel and reformation.2 Since then, courts have struggled with the showing necessary to obtain them. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently ruled in Gabriel v. Alaska Elec. Pension Fund,3 that none of these theories was available to a retiree who was incorrectly informed that he was eligible for an annuity.  The court was unanimous concerning the remedies of estoppel and reformation, but divided concerning the antiquated remedy of surcharge. 

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff in Gabriel was a retiree who from 1968 to 1975 had worked for various electric companies that participated in the Alaska Electrical Pension Plan (the Plan) under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. Thereafter he became the owner of Twin Cities Electric. Although he was not subject to the collective bargaining agreement as an owner, Twin Cities continued making contributions on his behalf from 1975 to 1978.  He had not vested in the Plan, and he was not entitled to an annuity benefit. 

Pursuant to the Plan, benefits vested after individuals completed 10 years of eligible service.  Because the plaintiff was an employee for eight years, and was credited with another three years of service as owner of Twin Cities, he was initially considered a vested Participant in the Plan. 

The Plan discovered its error in 1979.  It sent the plaintiff notices in 1979 that it was refunding a portion of Twin Cities’ contributions made on his behalf, but also offsetting other delinquent contributions that Twin Cities had failed to make for other employees.  In 1980, the plaintiff signed a release agreement that memorialized this arrangement.  The agreement detailed “the improper employer contributions paid from the year 1975 through 1978.”4  The plaintiff never accrued any additional service credit, and, therefore, his benefits never vested.

Sixteen years later, in 1996, the plaintiff contacted the Plan to inquire about his benefits in the event he decided to retire.  In 1997 a representative of the Plan sent him a letter, incorrectly informing him that his benefits had vested, based upon his service from 1968 to 1978 (thus incorrectly granting him service credit for his time as an owner).  The plaintiff subsequently retired, applied for benefits, and began receiving benefits under the Plan.

In 2000, the plaintiff took a job as safety inspector to supplement his retirement income.  The Plan contended that his work constituted prohibited post-retirement employment in the industry, and suspended his benefits under the Plan.  The plaintiff challenged his suspension before the Plan’s Appeals Committee.  The Committee denied the appeal.  He then appealed to an arbitrator under the terms of the Plan, who reversed and remanded the issue for further fact-finding.

Before the Appeals Committee ruled on the dispute, the plaintiff left his job as a safety instructor, and the Plan reinstated his benefits.  But the plaintiff pressed further.  He demanded his benefits from the period that the defendants had suspended them while he was employed as a safety inspector.  In a settlement offer, the defendants agreed to pay the plaintiff’s costs, his attorney’s fees, and his back-benefits, with interest.5

Before the plaintiff could respond to the offer, however, it was revoked.  The Fund rediscovered its earlier error and its determination that the plaintiff’s benefits never vested.  The plaintiff brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, alleging claims for benefits under section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA and for breach of fiduciary duty under section 502(a)(3).6

On appeal, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that, under the facts of this case, no monetary relief was available for breach of fiduciary duty under section 502(a)(3) of ERISA. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Berzon argued that the decision created a circuit split as to the required showing for the remedy of “surcharge.”

Estoppel And Reformation Under Section 502(a)(3) Of ERISA

The Ninth Circuit first addressed the plaintiff’s argument that the defendants were estopped from contradicting earlier statements that he was entitled to benefits under the Plan.  It noted that in the ERISA context, a plaintiff seeking relief for estoppel may not rely on statements that are inconsistent with the written Plan, or would otherwise result in an amendment or modification of the Plan.7  If the rule were otherwise, noted the court, plan administrators could endanger the actuarial soundness of the Plan for other participants who were genuinely eligible for benefits.  To avoid such a result, “oral agreements or modifications cannot supersede the written terms of an ERISA Plan.”8

Although claims for estoppel based on oral statements may be pleaded where the terms of the Plan are ambiguous, the court found no ambiguity.  The plaintiff conceded that his eligible service lasted only eight years, and that his benefits therefore did not vest under the terms of the Plan.  And the court rejected the plaintiff’s best argument—that he received statements pursuant to the Plan that detailed his benefits and the number of hours credited to his participant account—because the plaintiff had not averred that he relied on these statements when making his decision to retire.9

In any event, the court noted also that the plaintiff failed to satisfy one of the basic elements of any estoppel claim—lack of knowledge of the true facts surrounding a defendant’s incorrect statement of facts.  Because the plaintiff had received correspondence in 1979 clearly stating that his benefits had not vested and that he was ineligible to receive pension benefits, he could not claim ignorance of the true facts.10

With respect to reformation, the plaintiff alleged that either a mistake in the Plan documents or fraud on the part of the Plan should have triggered his eligibility for benefits.  The court rejected both arguments. 

As to the plaintiff’s theory of mistake, the court noted that the plaintiff did not allege either that the plain terms of the Plan contained an error, or that the trust settlor intended for the Plan to contain alternate terms.  Both showings are necessary for reformation under the doctrine of mistake.  As to the plaintiff’s theory of fraud, the court distinguished a Ninth Circuit case involving employees who would have been eligible for enhanced benefits under a retirement benefit plan, but who were not told of the opportunity.  Instead, the plaintiff was never eligible for benefits, and the court could not deem him eligible under the theory of reformation when the plain terms of the Plan precluded him from being eligible.11

Surcharge Applies Only to Improper Losses or Gains To The Trust

Finally, the court addressed the plaintiff’s claim for surcharge.  A claim for surcharge, noted the court, may “provide relief in the form of monetary ‘compensation’ for a loss resulting from a trustee’s breach of duty, or to prevent the trustee’s unjust enrichment.”12  Viewing the Supreme Court decision narrowly, the court held that in order to bring a claim for surcharge against a fiduciary, the breach alleged must have resulted in either “a loss to the trust estate” or must have allowed “the fiduciary to profit at the expense of the trust.”13  The court expressly stopped short of holding that the Supreme Court decision required courts to impose “make-whole” relief under the doctrine of surcharge, which would provide relief for damages suffered personally by beneficiaries.  Instead, it focused exclusively on trust principles involving suits against fiduciaries.  It cited an earlier opinion14 in which a Ninth Circuit panel rejected a claim for surcharge as lacking a connection to either a loss to the trust estate or unjust enrichment to the trustee.  The Gabriel court noted:  “We are bound by our own precedent, which correctly identifies surcharge as including only unjust enrichment and losses to the trust estate.”15

In affirming dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims, the court distinguished decisions from other circuits as merely recognizing the availability of surcharge claims after the 2011 Supreme Court decision, but not stating that surcharge was available for make-whole relief for personal losses.  The plaintiff made no allegation that the fiduciary benefited or that the trust fund suffered because of the incorrect representations to the plaintiff.  Indeed, the court noted, the denial of benefits aided the trust fund by preserving funds for participants who were eligible for benefits.  The plaintiff, therefore, could obtain monetary relief by way of the equitable remedy of surcharge.16

Dissent and Potential Circuit Split

In her dissent, Judge Berzon strongly took issue with the court’s decision to narrowly interpret the 2011 Supreme Court case and elements of surcharge.  The dissent contended that the court disregarded the Supreme Court case and created a circuit split with the Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh circuits.  Rather than confine surcharge claims to situations where a breach of fiduciary duty has led to a loss for the trust or to the unjust enrichment of the trustee, the dissent would have allowed “make-whole” relief.

The dissent noted that in the Supreme Court case, for instance, the plaintiffs had not alleged that the breach of fiduciary duty had resulted either in a loss to the trust fund or the unjust enrichment of the fiduciary defendants.  And indeed, on remand from the Supreme Court, the district court awarded relief to the plaintiffs on both an unjust enrichment theory and a make-whole basis.17

Similarly, although the majority opinion in Gabriel had distinguished decisions from other circuits as merely recognizing the availability of the surcharge cause of action, the dissent disagreed.  In one case, noted the dissent, the plaintiff sought surcharge where the defendant improperly accepted life-insurance premiums, and then sought only to refund the premiums upon the submission a claim.18  In another, the plaintiff sought surcharge on the basis that he waived coverage under his wife’s health insurance because his employer informed him he was eligible for coverage under his own plan.19  And in a third, a plaintiff underwent surgery on the basis that a plan representative incorrectly informed her that that the procedure would be covered.20  In each of these cases, the circuit courts remanded to the district courts to allow these claims to proceed.  Thus, if the plaintiffs in those cases had been ineligible for make-whole relief for personal damages, the dissent argued, there would have been no need for those courts to remand to the district courts for a decision on the issue of surcharge—such claims would have been barred as a matter of law.21

The dissent also made an effort to distinguish the earlier Ninth Circuit decision as merely mentioning two possible avenues for finding in favor of a plaintiff seeking surcharge.  The case did not, according to the dissent, stand for the proposition that these were the only possible avenues.22

Practical Considerations

In light of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, plan administrators—even those whose representatives have misstated an individual’s eligibility for participation in a health or retirement plan—have a much stronger argument to avoid legal liability under ERISA. 

However, plan administrators and employers should:

  • Train and monitor representatives on the importance of informing participants or individuals inquiring about their benefits status, since these statements can lead to litigation if incorrect.
  • Confirm that plan documents clearly spell out eligibility requirements to avoid opening the plan up, through ambiguities, to non-eligible individuals on the basis of estoppel.
  • Keep complete and accurate files, since individuals may not apply for benefits until decades after performing service that may trigger eligibility.
  • Understand that the state of the law with respect to ERISA § 502(a)(3) claims is in flux.
  • Continue monitoring legal developments as they proceed and potentially reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

1 CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 131 S. Ct. 1866 (2011).

2 Id. at 1879-80.

3 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10553 (9th Cir. June 6, 2014).

4 Id. at *8.

5 Id. at *10.

6 Id. at *11.  While the district court actually ruled in favor of the plaintiff on summary judgment with respect to the § 502(a)(1)(B) claim, and remanded to the Appeals Committee for further proceedings, the plaintiff eventually stopped pursuing this argument.  Id. at *12.

7 Id. at *21 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1102(a)(1), ERISA § 402(a)(1), with respect to the fact that an “employee benefit plan shall be established and maintained pursuant to a written instrument”).

8 Id. at *21 (internal quotation marks omitted).

9 Id. at *37-38

10 Id. at *40.

11 Id. at *41-42.

12 Id. at *25 (internal quotation marks omitted).

13 Id. at *27.

14 Skinner v. Northrop Grumman Ret. Plan B, 673 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2012).

15 Supra note 3 at *32.  The Skinner case was previously analyzed by Mr. Nadel here.  That piece noted that “Skinner is a welcome decision for plan fiduciaries.”

16 The court addressed one final argument from the plaintiff.  The plaintiff alleged that the defendants waived their ability to deny him benefits on the basis that the original decision suspending his benefits cited only his work as a safety inspector, and not the fact that he had not accrued sufficient years of eligible service.  The court rejected this argument as well, noting that the Appeals Committee informed the plaintiff of its rediscovery of his ineligibility before its final decision, and offered him a chance to litigate the issue during the administrative process.  Id. at *47-50.  In any event, the remedy for failing to give the plaintiff an opportunity to litigate the issue—if the process had failed the plaintiff—would have been to introduce evidence to the district court on the issue, which he did.  Id. at *50.

17 See Amara v. Cigna Corp., 925 F. Supp. 2d 242, 255 (D. Conn. 2012) (“[T]he Court finds that CIGNA may be surcharged on the basis of either a make-whole or unjust-enrichment theory.”); see id. at 256-57 (“It is challenging to even imagine a scenario where a violation of ERISA §§ 102(a) or 104(b) would by itself lead to the type of harm to trust assets that CIGNA asserts is a necessary prerequisite to surcharge.”).

18 McCravy v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 690 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2012).  The McCravy case was previously analyzed here.

19 Gearlds v. Entergy Servs., 709 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2013).

20 Kenseth v. Dean Health Plan, Inc., 722 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 2013).

21 Supra note 3 at *57-58.

22 Id. at *60-61; see also supra note 14.

 

Written by:

Littler
Contact
more
less

Littler on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!