Cigna Corp. v. Amara

99 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. The ERISA Litigation Newsletter; November 2013

    Proskauer Rose LLPNovember 22, 2013

    But see Harris v. Amgen, Inc., 717 F.3d 1042, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2013) ("We see no reason why ERISA plan participants who invested in a Company Stock Fund whose assets consisted solely of publicly traded common stock should not be able to rely on the fraud-on-the-market theory in the same manner as any other investor in publicly traded stock.").[78] 275 F.R.D. 681, 698-99 (S.D. Fla. 2011).[79] 131 S. Ct. 1866, 1880-82 (2011).[80]Wal-Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2560-61.[81]Cf., e.g., Randall v. Rolls-Royce Corp., 637 F.3d 818, 823-24 (7th Cir. 2011) (noting that named plaintiffs' pay in several years exceeded that of men and that such unique defenses made them inadequate class representatives and their claims atypical of the class).[82]E.g., Drake v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., No. CV 09-6467 ODW (RCx)(C.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2010) (holding, in state law wage claim for financial assistants at Morgan Stanley, that named plaintiffs' claims were atypical and they were inadequate representatives because they were subject to unique defenses on performance issues and counterclaims for expenses due).[83]E.g., Tabor v. Hilti, Inc. 703 F.3d 1206, 1229 (10th Cir. 2013) (finding commonality requirement not met when courts have to look at circumstances of individual claims-the two named plaintiffs illustrated this because one had a much weaker claim).

  2. The ERISA Litigation Newsletter -- October 2011

    Proskauer Rose LLPOctober 25, 2011

    The Seventh Circuit's decisions have responded to this threat by affirmatively establishing that in a defined contribution plan that offers a reasonable choice of investments, it is the participants – "the people who have the most interest in the outcome" – who are responsible for the choice of investments.Tenth Circuit Issues Significant Post-Amara Ruling on Disclosure Requirements in Connection with Cash Balance Conversions[4] Contributed by Bridgit M. DePietto Just three months after the Supreme Court's decision in CIGNA Corporation v. Amara, 131 S. Ct. 1866 (2011), the Tenth Circuit issued an opinion in Tomlinson v. El Paso Corp., No. 10-CV-1385, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16525 (10th Cir. Aug. 11, 2011), which addresses the disclosure issues under ERISA §§ 102 and 204(h), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1022 and 1054(h), that arise when employers convert traditional defined benefit plans to cash balance plans. Importantly, the Tenth Circuit held that ERISA does not require notification of wear-away periods so long as employees are informed and forewarned of plan changes.

  3. The Ninth Circuit Weighs in on ERISA’s Plan Document and Summary Plan Description Requirements: Mull v. Motion Picture Ind. Health Plan

    Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.Alden J. BianchiAugust 23, 2017

    The district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs holding that, because the reimbursement/recoupment provisions that the plan sought to enforce were found only in the summary plan description and not in any document that constituted “the plan,” the reimbursement/recoupment provisions were not legally enforceable under ERISA. In reaching its decision, the lower court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U.S. 421 (2011), which held that the “summary documents, important as they are, provide communication with beneficiaries about the plan, but that their statements do not themselves constitute the terms of the plan for purposes of [ERISA].” Amara, 563 U.S. at 438.

  4. The ERISA Litigation Newsletter

    Proskauer Rose LLPStacey CerroneNovember 19, 2014

    Editor's Overview As it is well known, in Cigna Corp. v. Amara, 131 S. Ct. 1866 (2011), the U.S. Supreme Court identified several forms of appropriate equitable relief that may be available under Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA. Many articles have been written about Amara and it implications.

  5. Kenseth v. Dean Health Plan, No. 11-1560 (7th Cir. June 13, 2013)

    Outten & Golden LLPPaul MollicaJune 14, 2013

    An employee is informed by an employer health plan that surgery is approved, only to learn afterwards that the plan changed its mind and refused to pay over $77,000 in bills. The occasion of these simple and all-too-common facts gives the Seventh Circuit an opportunity to apply the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision Cigna Corp. v. Amara, 131 S. Ct. 1866 (2011). It holds that Cigna "substantially changes our understanding of the equitable relief available under section 1132(a)(3)" and expands judicial options for remedies, including monetary relief.Kenseth v. Dean Health Plan, No. 11-1560 (7th Cir. June 13, 2013): Plaintiff Kenseth had, 18 years earlier, undergone a gastric band procedure for weight reduction.

  6. The ERISA Litigation Newsletter - December 2012

    Proskauer Rose LLPDecember 20, 2012

    Ultimately, the court concluded that the plan administrator acted reasonably when it determined that USF's contributions were not the result of a mistake and reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to USF.Preemption In Moon v. BWX Technologies, Inc., No. 11-1750, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24898 (4th Cir. Dec. 3, 2012), the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision that a beneficiary's breach of contract and breach of quasi-contract claims for life insurance benefits were preempted by ERISA and should be dismissed based on the terms of the ERISA plan, but remanded the case to permit the lower court to determine whether, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 131 S. Ct. 1866 (2011), the beneficiary had viable claims for equitable estoppel and breach of fiduciary duty under Section 502(a)(3). At the beginning of 2005, Mr. Moon selected life insurance coverage under an ERISA-covered employee benefit plan while he was an active employee of BWX.

  7. Post-Amara Fourth Circuit Approves Equitable Remedies under ERISA § 502(a)(3)

    Alston & Bird LLPEmily HootkinsJuly 12, 2012

    In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 131 S. Ct. 1866 (2011), a panel of the Fourth Circuit has allowed the pursuit of equitable remedies – including surcharge and equitable estoppel – under ERISA § 502(a)(3). Background Plaintiff Debbie McCravy participated in an ERISA governed life insurance and accidental death and dismemberment plan sponsored by her employer.

  8. Fourth Circuit Takes Expansive View of Equitable Relief for Plan Participant

    Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLPKatherine LangeJuly 9, 2012

    In McCravy v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 13683 (4th Cir. July 5, 2012), the Fourth Circuit interpreted Cigna v. Amara, 131 S. Ct. 1866 (2011) to pave the way for monetary relief to a participant bringing a claim for equitable relief under ERISA § 502(a)(3). In McCravy, the plaintiff, Ms. McCravy, was a participant in her employer’s life insurance benefit plan.

  9. Fourth Circuit Takes Expansive View of Equitable Relief for Plan Participants.

    Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLPKatherine LangeJuly 9, 2012

    In McCravy v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 13683 (4th Cir.July 5, 2012), the Fourth Circuit interpreted Cigna v. Amara, 131 S. Ct. 1866 (2011) to pave the way for monetary relief to a participant bringing a claim for equitable relief under ERISA § 502(a)(3). In McCravy, the plaintiff, Ms. McCravy, was a participant in her employer’s life insurance benefit plan.

  10. 9th Circuit: Equitable Remedies Post-Amara — Mere Violations of Law Do Not Establish “Harm” Justifying Equitable Remedies

    Lane Powell PCMay 17, 2012

    [author:Mike Reilly]What equitable remedies are available to plan participants? As you probably know, CIGNA v. Amara, 131 S.Ct. 1866, 1878-80 (2011) contains dicta that can be viewed as expanding the range of “equitable relief” available to ERISA plan participants under Section 502(a)(3). This relief may include estoppel, reformation and surcharge.But what proof is needed for plan participants to win equitable relief?