Seyfarth Synopsis:  As foreshadowed in our earlier post, the first complaint was filed in what is expected to be a wave of litigation alleging breach of fiduciary duty in selecting and monitoring welfare plan vendors.  While the facts of this particular case may make it somewhat distinguishable from the circumstances involved in most employer-sponsored

On October 31, 2023, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued its latest attempt at revising the rules regarding when investment professionals who provide “investment advice” to employee benefit plans or plan participants are a fiduciary under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). This proposed rule represents the most recent bid by the

Seyfarth Synopsis: Employer health plan sponsors, administrators, and insurers have been eagerly awaiting the U.S. Department of Labor’s upcoming guidance on mental health parity.  According to recent reports, newly proposed MHPAEA regulations have been sent to the White House for review and their public release is imminent. 

In 2020, Congress amended the Paul Wellstone and

By: Amanda Genovese and Ryan Tikker

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently took a clarifying pencil to certain standards applicable to benefits disputes under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et. seq. (ERISA).  In Carlson, et al. v. Northrop Grumman Severance Plan, et

Seyfarth Synopsis: A recent decision from the Eastern District of Michigan serves as a reminder that—while courts are often quick to certify classes in ERISA cases—plaintiffs must satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 and that courts can (and do) refuse class certification where those requirements are not met.

In Davis v. Magna International of America

By: Ronald Kramer and Seong Kim

Seyfarth Synopsis:  Another court has found that actuaries who set discount rates for withdrawal liability purposes that are not based upon their “best estimate of anticipated experience” for investments under the plan—in this case, basing the rate assumption only on estimated returns for 40% of the Plan’s assets in

By: Ian Morrison & Jules Levenson

Seyfarth Synopsis: The 7th Circuit recently held that insurers and administrators must provide claimants an opportunity to respond to new information relied on for adverse benefit determinations, even if the claim predated the enactment of the relevant regulation.

In Zall v. Standard Ins. Co., 58 F.4th 284