Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case concerned whether Section 514(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), preempted the breach of contract claim asserted by Appellees Lawrence J. Barnett, Christine Cookenback, James M. Defeo, and Madlin Laurent against Appellant SKF USA, Inc. under Pennsylvania law. Appellees were salaried, non-unionized, employees of SKF, working in its Philadelphia plant. The Company also employed hourly unionized employees at the plant. In 1991, SKF announced its decision to shut down the plant and terminate all workers. Over the course of the next year, the effect of the closing on employee retirement rights and benefits became a matter of discussion between Appellees and their supervisors. Appellees' retirement and pension rights were set forth in the an ERISA plan which SKF maintained and administered. Appellees became aware that, as a result of collectively bargaining the effects of plant closing, SKF agreed that any union worker with 20 years of service and 45 years of age, as of March 10, 1993, the date on which the collective bargaining agreement then in effect expired, would be entitled to receive an immediate and full pension (the creep provision). Two years after their employment with SKF was terminated, and prior to the submission of pension applications, Appellees commenced a breach of contract action against SKF alleging that throughout the course of their employment with the Company, they were employed under the same or better terms and conditions, including "pension eligibility," as SKF’s union workers. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found that Appellees' claim was preempted, and accordingly reversed the Superior Court's order that affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment in favor of SKF.

In this case, the district court found that plaintiff's claims against defendant were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., because they arose under defendant's Pension Plan (Plan) and not separately and independently out of plaintiff's written employment agreement (Agreement). On appeal, plaintiff argued that the additional benefits he sought were based on a promise separate and independent from the Plan. The court held that the district court properly denied plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court because plaintiff's state law claims were preempted by ERISA where the Agreement merely described the benefits plaintiff would receive as a Plan member and it made no promises of benefits separate and independent from the benefits under the Plan. The suit was properly removed to federal court, the district court had federal jurisdiction over the case, and remand to state court was not warranted. The district court properly dismissed plaintiff's action for failure to state a plausible claim. Finally, the court considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and concluded that they were without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

This appeal required the court to determine what effect, if any, a retiree benefits-related provision included in an asset purchase agreement had on the acquiring company's retiree benefits plans governed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1000 et seq. The court held that the provision constituted a valid plan amendment. Moreover, the court held that the provision was assumed, not rejected, in bankruptcy. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.

In attempting to enroll his infant daughter, a covered employee failed to complete parts of the form indicating whether the child resided with employee, was dependent upon employee for more than 50 percent support and maintenance, and whether the child qualified to be claimed as a tax exemption on employee's federal tax return. The plan made several inquiries before sending a notice that coverage was denied. The employee did not appeal. The plan sued under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act , 29 U.S.C. 1001, to recover $472,357.84 paid to the medical college and $1,199,538.58 paid to the hospital on behalf of the child. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the ERISA claim. The plan reserves the right to recover against "covered persons" if it has paid them or any other party on their behalf. Neither the treating entities nor the child are covered persons. Because the plan is not implicated, state law claims were not preempted; the court reversed dismissal of those claims. Plaintiffs' position was not unreasonable; the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees.

Defendant entered into an Employment Agreement with his employer before the employer entered into a merger. After defendant was terminated by his employer and post-merger disputes arose as to the amounts his employer owed him, defendant filed a demand for arbitration under the Employment Agreement's arbitration provision. The employer commenced this action to enjoin the arbitration as preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. The employer alleged federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 because the severance dispute "arises out of an [ERISA] employee benefit plan" and therefore state law claims were preempted, and supplemental jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 1367 over non-ERISA claims. The court considered ERISA's statutory language, purpose, and historical context and held that an individual contract providing severance benefits to a single executive employee was not an ERISA employee welfare benefit plan within the meaning of section 1002(1). The court also held that ERISA preempted state laws that "relate to" an employee benefit plan. Consequently, further questions arose because the Employment Agreement included two provisions that could "relate" to the Employment Agreement to other programs of the employer that were ERISA plans. As neither parties nor the district court considered this jurisdictional issue, the court remanded for further proceedings.

Kurt R. Ward, Attorney at Law, LLC, appealed the district court's order denying its motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting the Plan Parties' (the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan, the Retirement Board of the Plan, and the Bank of New York Mellon Corporation) cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. Both parties' motions sought a declaration about whether the Plan Parties had to pay the disability benefits of two of the Ward Firm's retired NFL player clients into the firm's client trust account pursuant to state court jurisdiction for unpaid attorney's fees despite a provision in the Plan prohibiting any "benefit under the Plan" from being assigned or reached by creditors through legal process. The court held that its prior panel precedent held that bargained-for provisions barring assignments in ERISA welfare benefits were valid and enforceable and that the Ward Firm had not directed the court's attention to any such intervening en banc or Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment and held that the district court did not err in declaring that the spendthrift provision in the Plan prevented the Plan Parties from depositing the disability benefits owned by two retired NFL players into the Ward Firm's trust account.

The decedent, killed in a motorcycle accident in 2008, was covered by a life insurance policy, subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1101. The insurance company denied a claim by the decedent's widow, claiming that the decedent's anti-coagulant medications contributed to his death so that it fell within an exclusion for medical conditions. The district court concluded that the policy gave the company discretionary authority to determine eligibility and entered summary judgment in the company's favor. The Third Circuit reversed in part and remanded. Deferential review was not appropriate, given the language of the policy. The words "proof of loss satisfactory to Us," surrounded by procedural requirements, do not notify participants that the company has the power to re-define the entire concept of a covered loss on a case-by-case basis. The district court's interpretation of the medical exclusion, in favor of the company, was correct; the clause was not ambiguous.

The Plaintiffs in this action were participants and beneficiaries of a life insurance plan offered by Defendant Qwest Communications International. In 2007, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Qwest, arguing that the Plan made certain changes in violation of ERISA. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Qwest. Plaintiffs raised seven issues on appeal to the Tenth Circuit, the sum of which was that the Plan misrepresented certain changes that unreasonably impacted employees' retirement benefits. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit found that any misrepresentations were not material or in violation of ERISA. The Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Plan.

A $15,000 insurance policy covering the decedent named his brother as beneficiary. The brother was killed in the same accident that killed the decedent. Although the insurer received notice that the decedent's mother (estate administrator) had assigned the policy to pay for the funeral, the company obtained an order from the state court and paid the benefit to decedent's children, applying a "facility-of-payment" clause, which provided: "if the beneficiary he or she named is not alive at the Employeeâs death, the payment will be made at Our option, to any one or more of the following: Your spouse; Your children; Your parents; Your brothers and sisters; or Your estate." The assignee (finance company) filed suit. The federal district court entered judgment in favor of the insurer. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, exercising jurisdiction under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1132. Insurance companies have broad discretion under facility-of-payment clauses and the insurer's decision was not arbitrary. The court declined to award attorney fees.

A non-profit hospital ("plaintiff") that provided medical services to beneficiaries of Local 272 Welfare Fund ("Fund"), an employee benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. 1101, filed a complaint against defendants seeking payment for over $1 million in medical services provided to beneficiaries that the Fund had allegedly failed to reimburse. At issue was whether a healthcare provider's breach of contract and quasi-contract claims against an ERISA benefit plan were completely preempted by federal law under the two-pronged test for ERISA preemption established in Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila. The court held that an "in-network" healthcare provider may receive a valid assignment of rights from an ERISA plan beneficiary pursuant to ERISA section 502(a)(1)(B); where a provider's claims involved the right to payment and not simply the amount or execution of payment when the claim implicated coverage and benefit determinations as set forth by the terms of the ERISA benefit plan, that claim constituted a colorable claim for benefits pursuant to ERISA section 502(a)(1)(B); and in the instant case, at least some of plaintiff's claims for reimbursement were completely preempted by federal law. The court also held that the remaining state law claims were properly subject to the district court's supplemental jurisdiction.