Kemmerer v. ICI Americas Inc.

7 Citing briefs

  1. Register v. Gnc Holdings, Inc.

    BRIEF in Opposition

    Filed May 22, 2017

    7 GNC also cites a couple of authorities applying the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). (Motion, at 10) (citing Sprague v. Gen. Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388, 392 (6th Cir. 1998) (plaintiffs “allege that GM violated [ERISA] by denying them fully “paid-up” lifetime health care benefits”); Kemmerer v. ICI Americas Inc., 70 F.3d 281, 284 (3d Cir. 1995) (“[i]n this case, Case 1:17-cv-01320-RBK-AMD Document 12 Filed 05/22/17 Page 25 of 39 PageID: 101 19 D. The Complaint States A CFA Claim The legislative history of the CFA reveals that, without exception, it is remedial legislation and, as such, “should be construed liberally.”

  2. Cook et al v. General Nutrition Corporation

    BRIEF in Support re Motion to Dismiss re: 1 Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12

    Filed March 30, 2017

    In light of this express provision permitting GNC to make alterations to the benefits and terms of membership, Plaintiffs cannot show that GNC breached its contract with them. See, e.g., Gordon v. United Continental Holding, Inc., 73 F. Supp. 3d 472, 479 (D.N.J. 2014) (granting motion to dismiss where contractual terms of mileage awards program permitted United to modify, or even cancel the terms of mileage program); Sprague v. Gen. Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388, 404 (6th Cir. 1998) (reversing district court’s grant of class certification where employer “unambiguously” reserved the right to amend or terminate lifetime healthcare benefits under the employees’ plans); Kemmerer v. ICI Am. Inc., 70 F.3d 281, 287-88 (3d Cir. 1995) (recognizing that “top hat” contracts could be terminated if “an explicit right to terminate or amend after the participants’ performance is reserved.”); In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Medical Ben.

  3. Loffredo et al v. Daimler AG et al

    REPLY to Response re MOTION to Dismiss in Cerberus Action

    Filed April 6, 2011

    See Demery v. Extebank Deferred Compensation Plan, 215 F.3d 283, 287 (2d Cir. 2000) (“Top hat plans are exempt from the … vesting provisions of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1061[.]”); Kemmerer, 70 F.3d at 286-87 (holding that a civil action may be brought by a participant or beneficiary of a top-hat plan to recover benefits due to him under the terms of the plan or to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan).

  4. COOPER v. AETNA HEALTH INC. PA, CORP. et al

    MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION to Certify Class

    Filed May 29, 2010

    Section 502(a)(1)(B) permits Plaintiffs to assert a breach of contract claim for failure to pay benefits as required under the terms and conditions of the plans. Kemmerer v. ICI Americas Inc., 70 F.3d 281, 287 (3d Cir. 1995) (“In holding that ICI breached the terms of the plan, the district court appropriately applied contract principles.”) “[B]reach of contract principles, applied as a matter of federal common law, govern disputes arising out of plan documents.”

  5. Cook et al v. General Nutrition Corporation

    BRIEF in Opposition re Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

    Filed June 13, 2017

    Kemmerer v. ICI Am. Inc., 70 F.3d 281 (3d Cir. 1995), In re Unisys Corp Retiree Med. Bene. ERISA Litig., 58 F.3d 896 (3d Cir. 1995), and the like involved the interpretation of ERISA rights under federal common law, involved unique ERISA considerations, and did not involve any state law duty of good faith. Case 2:17

  6. Barnett et al v. Platinum Equity Capital Partners Ii, L.P. et al

    BRIEF in Support re Motion to Dismiss

    Filed January 3, 2017

    It is well settled that ERISA claims over top hat plan benefits are, within the parameters of ERISA, analyzed as contracts “governed by general principles of federal common law.” In re New Valley Corp., 89 F.3d 143, 149, 150–51 (3d Cir. 1996) (holding that top hat plans are treated like unilateral contracts); see also Kemmerer v. ICI Americas Inc., 70 F.3d 281, 287 (3d Cir. 1995) (noting that top hat plan claims are governed by “breach of contract principles, applied as a matter of federal common law”). Where a top hat plan accords discretionary authority to the plan administrator, then a court, as a matter of contract law, is obliged to accord deference to the plan administrator’s decision, provided it was exercised in good faith.

  7. Yost v. Anthem Life Insurance Company

    REPLY BRIEF re MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint

    Filed October 31, 2016

    Notably, if the plan documents are unambiguous, we may construe them as a matter of law. Kemerer v. ICI Americas, Inc., 70 F.3d 281, 288–89 (3d Cir.1995). V. Discussion A. Count 1 *4 Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), Count 1 of the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint seeks declaratory relief to clarify and enforce their rights to future benefits under the DB Plan and the RIP 87 Plan.