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

The 401(k) services industry engages in “revenue sharing,” an arrangement allowing mutual funds to share a portion of the fees that they collect from investors with entities that provide services to the mutual funds, the investors, or both. Until recently the practice was opaque to individual investors and many 401(k) plan sponsors. As the existence and extent of revenue sharing has become more widely known, lawsuits were filed, alleging that the practice violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The district court awarded summary judgment to AUL, an Indiana-based insurance company that offers investment, record-keeping, and other administrative services to 401(k) plans. The court ruled that AUL was not a fiduciary of the Leimkuehler Profit Sharing Plan with respect to AUL’s revenue-sharing practices. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Although “very little about the mutual fund industry or the management of 401(k) plans can plausibly be described as transparent,” AUL is not acting as a fiduciary for purposes of 29 U.S.C. 1002(21)(A) when it makes decisions about, or engages in, revenue sharing. View "Leimkuehler v. Am. United Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

From 1997 through 2009 Sachdeva, the vice president for accounting at Koss, instructed Park Bank, where Koss had an account, to prepare more than 570 cashier’s checks, payable to Sachdeva’s creditors and used to satisfy personal debts. She embezzled about $17.4 million, pleaded guilty to federal crimes, and was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment. The SEC sued Sachdeva and an accomplice because their scheme caused Koss to misstate its financial position. Koss and Park Bank are litigating which bears the loss in Wisconsin. In this suit, Park Bank argued that Federal Insurance must defend and indemnify it under a financial-institution bond (fidelity bond) provision that promises indemnity for “Loss of Property resulting directly from . . . false pretenses, or common law or statutory larceny, committed by a natural person while on the premises of” the Bank. Sachdeva did not enter the Bank’s premises. She gave instructions by phone, then sent employees to fetch the checks. The district court entered judgment in the insurer’s favor. The Seventh Circuit affirmed; every court that has considered the subject has held that a fraud orchestrated from outside a financial institution’s premises is not covered under the provision, which is standard in the industry. View "Bankmanagers Corp. v. Fed. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The law firm represented a potential buyer in the purchase of a drugstore. Buyer and Seller executed the sales contract separately. The firm misfiled the contract executed by Buyer, however, and Seller subsequently attempted to rescind the contract, which it characterized as an offer, because it had not timely received a copy of the contract executed by Buyer. When Seller’s efforts to avoid the purported contract were successful, Buyer sent a “formal notice of claim” to the firm, which sought coverage from its professional liability insurer. That insurer concluded that the firm was not entitled to coverage because it failed to properly notify the insurer of the mistake that ultimately led to the malpractice claim. The firm sought a declaratory judgment. The district court granted the insurer summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the firm’s knowledge of the email exchange with Seller’s counsel and of an Alabama declaratory-judgment action constituted knowledge of “any circumstance, act or omission that might reasonably be expected to be the basis of” a malpractice claim. View "Koransky, Bouwer & Poracky, P. C. v. Bar Plan Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Companies underwriting workers’ compensation insurance participate in a reinsurance pool administered by the National Workers Compensation Reinsurance Association. Insurers share in the pool’s profit or loss according to the volume of business they underwrite. When the pool is profitable, it is beneficial to have a larger book of business; when the pool loses money, a smaller book means that the underwriter needs to contribute less toward the losses. The class contends that AIG underreported the size of its business in losing years, causing the pool’s other members to bear a disproportionate share of the losses and sought$3.1 billion. Some of the insurers had independent claims against AIG. AIG advanced its own claims against Liberty Mutual. The district judge approved a settlement. Liberty Mutual appealed, arguing that its share would not compensate it adequately for its stand-alone claims against AIG and that the conflicts of interest within the reinsurance pool meant that the case never should have been certified as a class. After argument, Liberty Mutual settled with AIG. The Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding that the settlement does not jeopardize the interests of the unrepresented class members. View "Am. Int'l Grp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co" on Justia Law

Tompkins began working in 1978 and was a participant in the Fund, a multi-employer pension fund established and administered under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001. In 1999, Tompkins was granted a disability pension based on chronic asthmatic bronchitis, which he attributed to working with cement dust for 22 years. Tompkins’s application included agreement to be bound by all the Fund’s rules and regulations, although he did not inquire about those rules or make any effort to find out what they were. Upon receiving his first monthly payment of $2,115.43, he was required to sign a Retirement Declaration that provided notice of disqualifying employment for plan participants receiving retirement pensions but did not include the rules and regulations specific to disability pensioners. In 2007, the Fund suspended his disability pension, claiming that his full-time employment in 2005 and 2006 indicated that he no longer met the definition of “total and permanent disability.” The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Fund. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Although the Fund acknowledged ambiguity, it based its decision on a reasonable interpretation. View "Tompkins v. Cent. Laborers' Pension Fund" on Justia Law

Plaintiff left his senior position in 1996, having participated in the Retirement Income Security Plan for Employees (RISPE), a tax-qualified defined benefits plan that guarantees specified retirement benefits, and in the Excess Benefit Plan, a defined unfunded benefits pension plan under which benefits are paid directly by the employer rather than by a trust funded by the employer. Both plans allowed him to choose between an annuity and an actuarial equivalent lump sum distribution. In 2009 he received his RISPE lump sum, $325,054.28 and his Excess Plan lump sum, $218,726.38. The discount rate used to calculate lump sum RISPE benefits was a “segment rate,” 26 U.S.C. 417(e)(3)(C), of 5.24 percent. The discount rate applied to the Excess Plan lump sum was 7.5 percent. The district court rejected his ERISA claim that the discount rate required by both plans was a rate computed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation on the basis of annuity premiums charged by insurance companies. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. With respect to the RISPE, the accrued benefit, which cannot be reduced retroactively, is the annuity; the lump sum is not the accrued benefit and can be reduced retroactively. The court rejected a conflict-of-interest argument concerning calculation of the Excess Benefit Plan discount rate. View "Dennison v. MONY Life Ret. Income Sec. Plan for Emps." on Justia Law

The Hancock Center in Chicago is managed by Shorenstein (several related companies). Shorenstein hired an architectural firm, MCA, to design and oversee renovation of windows and exterior walls; MCA hired a general contractor. In 2002, a scaffold fell from the 42nd floor in a high wind and killed three people in cars, severely injuring several others. Shorenstein settled with plaintiffs in 2006 for a total of $8.7 million. MCA’s contract with Shorenstein had required MCA to obtain liability insurance covering the owner, Shorenstein, and any other party specified by the owner. MCA obtained the required insurance policy from AMICO, covering “any person or organization to whom [MCA is] obligated by virtue of a written contract.” There was a dispute concerning which Shorenstein entities were covered. Shorenstein was awarded $959,866.02 by the district court. The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the court erred in apportioning the award among the Shorenstein entities. The court rejected AMICO’s arguments that the claim was barred by an exclusion of coverage for injuries “due to rendering or failure to render any professional service” by an insured and that Shorenstein gave up its right to indemnity by AMICO by asking its other insurer for indemnification. View "Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Hentz is an accountant with a firm employed by pension funds to perform accounting and auditing services. The firm possessed a compact disc containing confidential and protected information, including the names, birth dates, and Social Security numbers of approximately 30,000 participants and beneficiaries of the funds. The firm agreed in writing to ensure that it would safeguard the information on the compact disc. Hentz placed the compact disc in a laptop, put the laptop in her personal vehicle, and parked in the open at her residence. The laptop and disc were stolen. The funds incurred nearly $200,000 in credit monitoring and insurance expenses and sued Hentz, who tendered the defense to Nationwide, which had written her homeowner’s insurance policy. Nationwide obtained a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Hentz because the policy does not cover damage to property rented to, occupied or used by or in the care of the insured or arising out of or in connection with a business conducted from an insured location or engaged in by an insured, whether or not the business is owned or operated by an insured or employs an insured. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Central Laborers' Pension Fund" on Justia Law

Arbor builds homes in Indiana and contracted with Willmez Plumbing, which was to obtain insurance naming Arbor as an additional insured. Willmez subcontracted to Alarcon. After the work was ostensibly completed, the buyers noticed a foul odor and felt ill. Alarcon had not connected the plumbing to the main sewer line. Raw sewage had discharged into the crawl space. Willmez corrected the connection. Arbor contracted for cleanup that required excavation and decontamination and cost about $65,000. The owners demanded replacement of the house. Arbor told Willmez to notify its insurer West Bend. Hearing nothing, Arbor assumed the insurer had no objections and agreed to build a new home, pay closing costs and moving expenses, and to compensate for any increase in mortgage rate. Arbor sued Willmez, alleging negligence, breach of contract, slander of title, and constructive fraud, and sent West Bend a copy. The district court granted West Bend summary judgment, finding that it was relieved of duties to defend or indemnify by “fungi and bacteria exclusion” and “voluntary payments” provisions. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Although Arbor’s quick and decisive action was laudable, failure to obtain West Bend’s consent to the settlement relieved it of any obligation. View "West Bend Mut.l Ins. Co v. Arbor Homes, LLC" on Justia Law

Enviro-Chem conducted waste-handling and disposal operations at three sites north of Zionsville, Indiana, until it ceased operations in 1982, leaving considerable amounts of pollutants. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency undertook cleanup and identified potentially responsible parties (PRPs), including former owners, their corporate entities, and their insurers. A trust was established to fund cleanup and trustees sued to recover cleanup costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a) (CERCLA), the Indiana Environmental Legal Actions Statute (ELA), and more. Work continues at the site at issue. The district court dismissed, in part, on limitations grounds, construing the complaint as seeking contribution. The Seventh Circuit reversed dismissal of three counts, holding that claims to recover costs incurred pursuant to the 2002 Administrative Order by Consent between the EPA and PRPs and that related claims, including the ELA claim, were not moot. The court upheld denial of an insurer’s motion for summary judgment on preclusion grounds. View "Bernstein v. Bankert" on Justia Law