Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Orr died in a motorcycle accident. His daughters sought benefits under a group life insurance policy governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act and issued by USIC to Orr’s former employer. The policy provided accidental death, subject to exclusions, including one for loss resulting “directly or indirectly from … intoxication[.]” USIC asserted that Orr’s death resulted from his intoxication. The letter explained that autopsy and toxicology reports revealed that Orr’s blood alcohol level at the time of the accident exceeded the legal limit and that USIC’s medical consultant opined that Orr “would have been impaired in attention, coordination, and balance,” as a result. The letter advised the Orrs of their right to seek review and included a copy of USIC’s Life Claims Denial Review Procedure, stating, in boldfaced, all-caps print, that a request for review must be submitted in writing within 60 days and warning: “If … you do not complete both the first and second review before filing a lawsuit, a court can dismiss your lawsuit.“ The document encourages claimants to call with any questions. The Orrs filed suit before completing the review process. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of USIC on grounds of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. View "Orr v. Assurant Emp. Benefits" on Justia Law

Reilly participated in a pension plan offered by Continental, which administers its own defined-benefit plan. The pension depends on the highest average compensation in any 60-month period of employment. “Compensation” includes regular salary, incentive compensation, and deferred compensation deposited in 401(k) plans. Educational bonuses, referral bonuses, overseas allowances, and some other items are not included. When Reilly left Continental’s employ in 1999, he received a statement of qualifying compensation that implied a monthly benefit of about $5,400 starting in 2012, when he would turn 65. In 2012, Continental sent Reilly a different calculation, showing lower compensation and entitlement to $4,200 a month. After internal appeals, Reilly filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B). The district judge concluded that Continental’s decision was arbitrary and capricious and ordered it to pay monthly benefits of $5,400. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Reilly did not show that $5,400 is the only possible outcome of proper calculation, only that the calculation was improper. By working through the original compensation numbers, the parties may agree what the right pension is. If not, the district court must remand to Continental so that the administrator can make a fresh calculation, which then could be subjected to judicial review. View "Reilly v. Continental Cas. Co." on Justia Law

National Retirement Fund sought to hold Mezz Lender and Oaktree Capital responsible for multiemployer pension fund withdrawal liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980, 29 U.S.C. 1381. Oaktree, through Mezz Lender, provided financing for the acquisition of a hotel by Chicago H&S. When H&S defaulted, it was taken into bankruptcy and the hotel was liquidated. NRF contends that the sale of the hotel triggered withdrawal liability on the part of H&S and any other “trade or business” under common control with it, including bot Oaktree and Mezz Lender. Oaktree and Mezz Lender, argued that the claim of withdrawal liability was barred by the bankruptcy reorganization plan pursuant to which the hotel was sold. On motions for summary judgment, the court stated that having decided that Oaktree and Mezz were not jointly and severally liable for H&S’s withdrawal liability, "the Court need not address the parties’ arguments as to [the Oaktree parties’] motion" concerning the bankruptcy. The Seventh Circuit vacated. The court decided in the absence of a cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue that it found to be dispositive, and without first giving the unsuccessful movant notice that it was entertaining the possibility of entering summary judgment against it or the opportunity to respond. View "Hotel 71 Mezz Lender LLC v. National Retirement Fund" on Justia Law

The class action suit, filed about 19 years ago, claimed that a defined‐contribution ERISA pension plan in which the employer matched contributions made by its employees was partially terminated, requiring vesting. After a previous remand, the district judge granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant and awarded $64,000 in costs. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. When a pension plan is terminated, the rights of the participants in the plan vest in full; none of the money contributed by the employer to the individual employees’ retirement accounts is returned to the employer. Full vesting is required in the case of partial as well as total terminations, 26 U.S.C. 411(d)(3)(A). The district judge had to decide whether the series of reductions in the number of plan participants should be considered a single partial termination. The judge determined that there was no plan; decisions to sell particular subsidiaries were made sequentially, based on economic conditions in the particular market in which each operated. View "Matz v. Household Int'l Tax Reduction Inv. Plan" on Justia Law

South Water Market and Local 703 of the Teamsters Union had a collective bargaining agreement that ran from 2004 through April 30, 2007. On September 12, 2007, they reached a new agreement. Abramson, Market’s bargaining representative, was supposed to draft the agreement. Murdoch, the Union’s president reminded Abramson repeatedly. By February 2008 Murdoch was worried that pension and welfare funds covering the employees would cut off participation or sue. In March, Abramson begged off, stating: “I’m having trouble with my notes.” On April 3 Murdoch sent Abramson a document with terms from Murdoch’s notes. Abramson did not reply, but Market began paying wages, and making pension and welfare contributions specified in Murdoch’s text. Murdoch also sent the document to the pension and welfare funds, which submitted bills calculated according to those terms. In July 2009 Castillo retired. He had been one of two workers in the highly-compensated “driver classification. The Murdoch document stated that Market would employ at least two drivers. After Castillo retired, it refused to provide more than one worker with the wages and benefits of the driver classification. The pension and welfare funds sued under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1145, seeking delinquent contributions for a second driver position. The district judge found that Market had not agreed to the terms. The Seventh Circuit reversed, reasoning that the Labor Management Relations Act makes a written agreement essential to participation in a pension or welfare plan, 29 U.S.C. 186(c)(5)(B), and Market does not contend that it wants to drop out of the plans or that it did withdraw Whatever reservations Abramson had were not conveyed to the funds until August 2009, much too late.View "Russ v. South Water Mkt, Inc." on Justia Law

Hayssen and its employees were parties to a Plant Closing Agreement that promised medical benefits upon retirement. In 1996, Bemis acquired Hayssen and assumed its obligations. Bemis reduced benefits under the Agreement: increasing co-pays and deductibles and eliminating its prescription drug program. Former employees sued under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1132, and the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185(a). The court certified a class, but granted summary judgment to Bemis, reasoning that the Agreement did not establish a lifetime interest in a certain level of benefits. About a month later, Bemis eliminated all medical benefits under the Agreement. The Seventh Circuit reversed, concluding that the parties intended to provide lifetime medical coverage. On remand, the court granted a preliminary injunction forcing Bemis to restore the benefits eliminated in 2009 and provide a basic Medicare Part D drug benefit. The court awarded fees and costs, finding that the company’s position was not substantially justified. The judge struck billing entries that were vague or for time not reasonably expended on the case, concluded that the lawyers’ billing rates were reasonable, and calculated the lodestar amount to reach an award of $403,053.75, for four years of advocacy, including an appeal and trial preparation. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Temme v. Bemis Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Employers that withdraw from underfunded multiemployer pension plans must pay their share of the shortfall. They can seek recalculation of the plans' assessment within 90 days, 29 U.S.C. 1399(b)(2)(A), and within another 60 days, may invoke a process that the Act calls arbitration, though it is neither contractual nor consensual. Central States Pension Fund concluded that US Foods has withdrawn in part and assessed liability in 2008 and in 2009. US Foods timely requested arbitration of the 2009 assessment, but did not timely seek arbitration of the 2008 assessment. In the Fund’s suit to collect the 2008 assessment, US Foods asked the court to order the arbitrator to calculate the amount due for 2008 and 2009 jointly. The court ruled that US Foods had missed the deadline for arbitral resolution of the 2008 assessment. US Foods appealed, relying on 9 U.S.C.16(a)(1)(B), which authorizes an interlocutory appeal from an order “denying a petition under section 4 of this title to order arbitration to proceed”. The Seventh Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. An order declining to interfere in the conduct of an arbitration is not an order “denying a petition under section 4 of this title to order arbitration to proceed” under section 16(a)(1)(B). View "Cent. States SE & SW Areas Pension Fund v. US Foods, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2005, General Warehouse, an employer obligated to contribute to the Central States Pension Fund on behalf of certain employees ceased to have an obligation to the Fund, which led to a complete withdrawal, incurring withdrawal liability of $1,262,568. Under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act, 29 U.S.C. 1301(b)(1), if a withdrawing employer is unable to pay in full, a pension plan can recover the deficiency jointly and severally from any other business under common control with the withdrawing The Fund sued to collect from General Warehouse, GEOBEO and other businesses under common control. The parties entered into a consent judgment, acknowledging that the named defendants were jointly and severally liable. The Fund then initiated an action to add the defendants to the group of business entities from which it can collect. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Fund. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding “overwhelming evidence” that the entities were under common control. View "Cent. States, Southeast SE & SW Areas Pension Fund v. CLP Venture LLC" on Justia Law

In 2008 Schane suffered a job-related injury while working for YRC. He drew workers’ compensation benefits until he returned to work in 2009. Schane was medically cleared for light-duty work only, and with no light work available, he resumed workers’ compensation in 2010. YRC and its employees, including Schane, participate in a multi-employer benefit trust fund and an “employee pension benefit plan” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 1002(2). Schane submitted a pension application in July 2009, after returning from his first stint on workers’ compensation, but left blank the line on indicating his last day of work because the plan does not permit participants to take a pension while they are receiving workers’ compensation. The following March, Schane told the plan that his last day of work would be October 31, 2010. He later delayed his last day by a year. In September 2011, he delayed again. On December 21, he wrote that he would retire at the end of the year and that his pension should therefore be effective on January 1, 2012. Schane and the plan could not agree on the date that he “retired” for purposes of calculating benefits: August 2009 or December 2011. The district court rejected Schane’s argument. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, noting the trustees’ flimsy defense of their interpretation on appeal. View "Schane v. Int'l Bh of Teamsters Union Local No. 710" on Justia Law

ABA Retirement, a not‐for‐profit corporation created by the American Bar Association to provide its members and their employees with a retirement plan qualified to take advantage of income tax benefits, created master retirement plans for adoption by lawyers and law firms. In 1999 ABA Retirement hired State Street Bank to act as sole Plan trustee. ABA Retirement directors ceased to be trustees. ABA Retirement still maintained the IRS‐approved master tax‐qualified retirement plans and acted as Plan fiduciary, with authority to engage, monitor, and fire its trustee. It was responsible for Plan documents (ensuring that they were tax‐qualified), oversight of vendors, contract negotiations, and approval of State Street’s marketing plan. State Street had authority to engage and fire investment advisors, but was required to consult with ABA Retirement. The Plan paid ABA Retirement a fee for its services in connection with the Program based on a percentage of l invested assets. ABA Retirement received the interest on the funds. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, ABA Retirement reported gross income of $1,601,217 to $1,861,258. Its taxable income for those years was $384,972 to $672,098; it held assets worth $3.5 million. On tax returns ABA Retirement described itself as an employee benefit fund, and its product as retirement plans. In 2004 ABA retirement sought tax‐exempt status. In 2005, the IRS determined that ABA Retirement did not qualify for the exemption. ABA Retirement filed claims for refunds on taxes it paid from 2000-2002; those were denied. ABA Retirement filed suit, arguing that it was a tax‐exempt “business league” under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(6), from 2000 to 2002, and entitled to a refund. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "ABA Ret. Funds v. United States" on Justia Law