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: Cassandra Frias and Ada Dolph
Seyfarth Synopsis: After focusing most of its attention on retirement benefit plans, a recent complaint filed in the District of Connecticut shows that the plaintiffs’ bar is turning to health and welfare plans as targets for their new theories of breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA.
Plaintiff Aubrey Srednicki
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
By: Tom Horan and Sam Schwartz-Fenwick
Seyfarth Synopsis: A recent district court decision highlights the continued uncertainties about what it means to include an arbitration clause in an ERISA plan. While courts generally agree that such clauses are, in theory, enforceable, the extent to which courts will enforce a specific clause remains uncertain given divergent
By: Ryan Tikker
2022 has seen an increase in putative class actions brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) (29 U.S.C. §§ 1109 and 1132) against plan fiduciaries. Plaintiffs typically allege that plan fiduciaries breached the duties that ERISA imposes of employee retirement plans, namely, that the fiduciaries breached their duties of loyalty
By: Ryan Tikker
Recently, the Ninth Circuit addressed and further clarified the requirement of a “full and fair review” in the context of a long-term disability benefit case under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In matters that go to litigation, the Ninth Circuit held that a district court may not rely on rationales
By: Mark Casciari and Michael Cederoth
Seyfarth Synopsis: If an ERISA plaintiff establishes a fiduciary breach, expect the computation of damages to be a complicated process that may enhance damages through judgment. And a court judgment in complicated cases can take years to issue. This is the lesson from a recent decision of the Court
By: Tom Horan, Ian Morrison, and Sam Schwartz-Fenwick
Seyfarth Synopsis: Recognizing that the Plan contained an unambiguous arbitration provision, and that “ERISA claims are generally arbitrable,” the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals nonetheless found that arbitration could not be compelled where the provision prospectively barred the plaintiff from pursuing certain statutory remedies.
In Smith v.
By Mark Casciari and James Hlawek
Seyfarth Synopsis: A federal district court denied a motion to dismiss an ERISA complaint that was based in large part on secondhand “information and belief” allegations about the defendants’ business operations. The decision serves as a warning to defendants that they may be forced into costly discovery based on