Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Life Investors filed suit against defendants, alleging breach of a settlement agreement that required defendants to repay advances of monies defendants received from Life Investors. On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to Life Investors. The court affirmed, concluding that defendants' laches defense failed because they cannot show unreasonable delay on the part of Life Investors in bringing this suit nor can defendants show that they were prejudiced; even if the alleged inconsistencies were material, defendants chose not to investigate further and thus the determination that they ratified the Settlement Agreement was correct; the district court correctly granted summary judgment on the question of ratification of the Settlement Agreement after certifying that question to the Iowa Supreme Court and receiving its answer; and defendants' attempt to argue an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., violation as a defense in this action is barred as a matter of issue preclusion. View "Life Investors Ins. Co. v. Federal City Region" on Justia Law

In 2009, Liu, a physician in a residency program, elected basic life insurance coverage from LINA through his employer’s ERISA plan and elected supplemental coverage in an amount four times his salary. Asked whether, within the last five years he had been diagnosed with “Cancer, Tumor, Leukemia, Hodgkin’s Disease, Polyps or Mole,” he answered “no.” One month after submitting his application, Liu received a cancer diagnosis. On March 1, 2010, the insurance became effective. On April 23, 2010, Liu died. LINA paid the basic benefit of $46,858.49, but reviewed Liu’s medical records, which revealed that Liu had been experiencing symptoms without a diagnosis before submitting his November 12 application. LINA then issued a denial, stating: While the form was completed accurately at the time ... a diagnosis of cancer prior to the coverage approval date was not disclosed … [the] Form states ... any changes in your health prior to the insurance effective date must be reported. His wife responded that Liu was told he would not have to provide evidence of good health, but did not identify the person who made the alleged representation. The court rejected the wife’s suit on summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Liu breached an application requirement by failing to notify LINA of a cancer diagnosis he received before a policy issued. View "Huang v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am." on Justia Law

Michels is a member of the Pipe Line Contractors Association (PLCA), a trade association that negotiates collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) on behalf of its employer members with unions. In 2006, the PLCA and the Union entered into a CBA in “effect until January 31, 2011, and thereafter from year to year unless terminated at the option of either party after sixty (60) days’ notice.” The CBA required contributions to the Central States multiemployer pension plan, 29 U.S.C. 1000(2), (3), (37). In August 2010, the PLCA informed the Union that it intended to terminate the 2006 CBA on January 31, 2011, and begin negotiations for a new agreement; the parties signed eight extensions, the last ending November 15, 2011. Michels contributed to the pension plan throughout those extensions. The parties agreed that the employers would cease making contributions to the plan as of November 15, 2011; that they would make comparable payments to an escrow fund until a “mutually acceptable” fund was designated; and that they would otherwise extend the terms of the 2006 CBA until December 31, 2011. The fund claimed that the obligation to make contributions had not ended. The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court holding that this was not sufficient to end the duty to contribute. View "Michels Corp. v. Cent. States, SE & SW Areas Pension Fund" on Justia Law

M&G purchased the Point Pleasant Polyester Plant in 2000 and entered a collective bargaining agreement and a related Pension, Insurance, and Service Award Agreement with the union, providing that certain retirees, surviving spouses, and dependents, would “receive a full Company contribution towards the cost of [health care] benefits”; that such benefits would be provided “for the duration of [the] Agreement”; and that the Agreement would be subject to renegotiation in three years. After the expiration, M&G announced that it would require retirees to contribute to the cost of their health care benefits. Retirees sued, alleging that the 2000 Agreement created a vested right to lifetime contribution-free health care benefits. On remand, the district court ruled in favor of the retirees; the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded, noting that welfare benefits plans are exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1051(1), 1053, 1081(a)(2), 1083, and applying ordinary principles of contract law. The Court stated that Sixth Circuit precedent distorts ordinary principles of contract law, which attempt to ascertain the intention of the parties, “by placing a thumb on the scale in favor of vested retiree benefits in all collective-bargaining agreements.” The Sixth Circuit did not consider the rules that courts should not construe ambiguous writings to create lifetime promises and that “contractual obligations will cease, in the ordinary course, upon termination of the bargaining agreement.” View "M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett" on Justia Law

In 1997, Appellant began working for Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR). After Appellant retired in 2009, BPPR made a final calculation of Appellant’s pension, which yielded monthly payments significantly lower than earlier estimates had suggested. Seeking the higher amount he had expected, Appellant brought claims under ERISA, a theory of estoppel, and Puerto Rico contract law. The district court (1) dismissed the ERISA and contract claims, concluding that Appellant failed to state a claim under ERISA and that ERISA preempted the commonwealth claims; and (2) granted summary judgment against Appellant on the estoppel claim, concluding that the unambiguous terms of the benefits plan precluded a claim for estoppel. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Appellant could not recover under ERISA because he could not be awarded relief under the terms of BPPR’s retirement plan; (2) the district court properly held that Appellant’s commonwealth claims “relate to” the ERISA-regulated plan and, accordingly, they were preempted; and (3) because Appellant did not show any ambiguity in the plan, his equitable estoppel claim necessarily failed. View "Guerra-Delgado v. Banco Popular de P.R." on Justia Law

Ibson and her family were insured by UHS through a policy available to her to as a member of her law firm. Due to an error, UHS began informing Ibson’s medical providers that Ibson and her family no longer had insurance coverage. Although UHS eventually paid the claims it should have paid all along, Ibson sued, raising state law claims of breach of contract, negligence, and bad faith, and seeking punitive damages. UHS responded that Ibson’s claims were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and barred by the policy’s three-year contractual limitations period. The district court agreed and entered summary. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded, agreeing that Ibson’s state law claims are preempted under ERISA, but rejecting entry of summary judgment on the basis of the three-year contractual limitations period. View "Ibson v. United Healthcare Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

As a Solvay employee Moyer participated in Solvay’s ERISA- governed Long Term Disability Plan. In 2005 MetLife initially approved Moyer’s claim for benefits. MetLife reversed its decision in 2007 after determining that Moyer retained the physical capacity to perform work other than his former job. In an administrative appeal, MetLife affirmed the revocation on June 20, 2008. Moyer’s adverse benefit determination letter included notice of the right to judicial review but failed to include notice that a three-year contractual time limit applied. The Summary Plan Description failed to provide notice of either Moyer’s right to judicial review or the applicable time limit. On February 20, 2012, Moyer sued MetLife, seeking recovery of unpaid plan benefits under 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B). The district court held that the plan’s limitations period barred Moyer’s claim, noting that the plan documents—which were not sent to participants unless requested—stated that there was a three-year limitations period for filing suit, so that MetLife provided Moyer with constructive notice of the contractual time limit. The Sixth Circuit reversed. Exclusion of the judicial review time limits from the adverse benefit determination letter was inconsistent with ensuring a fair opportunity for review and rendered the letter not in substantial compliance. View "Moyer v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, employed by defense contractor Qinetiq to work on a military base in Iraq, were enrolled in Qinetiq’s Basic Long Term Disability, Basic Life, and Accidental Death and Dismemberment insurance policies, governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001, under a single contract with Prudential. Qinetiq paid the premiums. Plaintiffs also purchased, with their own funds, supplemental coverage under the same terms as the basic policies; there was a single summary plan description. An employee would file a single claim for basic and supplemental coverage benefits. The plan booklets provided that loss is not covered if it results from war, or any act of war, declared or undeclared. These exclusions applied to both the basic and supplemental policies. The plaintiffs were not otherwise uninsured for excluded injuries. Qinetiq obtained insurance required by the Defense Base Act, 42 U.S.C. 1651. After Prudential denied claims, the plaintiffs sued, alleging violations of the state consumer fraud acts and the Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act; breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and intentional or negligent misrepresentation or omission. They contended that Prudential fraudulently induced them to buy supplemental coverage knowing that any claim they filed would likely be subject to the war exclusions, rendering supplemental coverage effectively worthless. The district court dismissed, treating the basic and supplemental policies as components of a single plan, and holding that all state law claims were preempted by ERISA. The Third Circuit affirmed, holding that the supplemental coverage cannot be “unbundled” from ERISA coverage. View "Menkes v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am." on Justia Law

Hi-Lex has about 1,300 employees. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) served as a third-party administrator (TPA) for Hi-Lex’s Health and Welfare Benefit Plan since 1991. Under the Administrative Services Contracts (ASCs) between the parties, BCBSM agreed to process healthcare claims for Hi-Lex employees and grant those employees access to BCBSM’s provider networks. BCBSM received an “administrative fee” set forth in ASC Schedule A on a per-employee, per month basis. In 1993, BCBSM implemented a new system, “retention reallocation,” to retain additional revenue. Regardless of the amount BCBSM was required to pay a hospital for a given service, it reported a higher amount that was then paid by the self-insured client. Hi-Lex allegedly was unaware of the retention reallocation until 2011, when BCBSM disclosed the fees in a letter and described them as “administrative compensation.” Hi-Lex sued, alleging breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1104(a). The court awarded Hi-Lex $5,111,431 in damages and prejudgment interest of $914,241. The Sixth Circuit affirmed that: BCBSM was an ERISA fiduciary and breached its fiduciary duty under ERISA section 1104(a), that BCBSM conducted “self-dealing” in violation of section 1106(b)(1), and that Hi-Lex’s claims were not time-barred. View "Hi-Lex Controls, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of MI" on Justia Law

When Tyco Valves & Controls, L.P. decided to close one of its facilities located in Houston, Tyco offered certain employees retention agreements providing that, if the employees remained with the company through the facility’s closure, they would receive severance payments in the event they were not offered comparable employment with Tyco. After Tyco sold one of the production units located in the facility to another company, Plaintiffs, several former employees who had worked in that unit and been denied severance, filed a breach of contract action against Tyco. The trial court ruled in favor of the employees and awarded the severance pay. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act of 1974 preempted Plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract claims. View "Arsenio Colorado v. Tyco Valves & Controls, L.P." on Justia Law