Seyfarth Synopsis: On February 26, 2020, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee, et al. v. Sulyma. 589 U.S. ___ (2020), holding that plan participants must...more
3/3/2020
/ Actual or Constructive Knowledge ,
Appeals ,
Breach of Duty ,
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) ,
Fiduciary Duty ,
Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma ,
Material Disclosures ,
Question of Fact ,
Reaffirmation ,
Retirement Plan ,
Retirement Plan Beneficiaries ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Split of Authority ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Summary Judgment
In a closely observed federalism battle over the scope of ERISA preemption, the Supreme Court came down on the side of Federal power. Specifically, in Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, the Court, in a 6-2 ruling,...more
It’s a common fact pattern. A plan participant is injured and received benefits for treatment of his injuries. The participant then sues a third party for damages based on his injuries. The plan then seeks to recover a...more
Knowingly spending money that isn’t yours sounds like a no-no, but depending on how the Supreme Court rules in Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan (No. 14-723), certain ERISA...more
ERISA sets forth complex reporting, disclosure, vesting and funding rules for most private sector employee benefit plans. It also provides a private claim upon which relief may be granted in federal court for violations of...more