Mertens v. Hewitt Assocs

23 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. The ERISA Litigation Newsletter

    Proskauer Rose LLPStacey CerroneNovember 19, 2014

    The Evolution of Appropriate Equitable Relief Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA generally authorizes aparticipant, beneficiary or fiduciary to sue for ''appropriateequitable relief.''¹ Prior to Amara, the lowercourts interpreted the Supreme Court's ruling in Mertens v. Hewitt Assocs., 508 U.S. 248, 16 EBC 2169 (1993) as precluding the recovery of any monetary relief under Section 502(a)(3) because monetary relief was not considered to be equitable relief. Thus, a participant seeking to recover monetary relief from a plan under ERISA typically had to show he was entitled to those benefits under the terms of the plan pursuant to Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA, or was entitled to derivate relief by suing on behalf of the plan pursuant to Section 502(a)(2) of ERISA. In Amara, the Supreme Court ruled that monetary relief is available under Section 502(a)(3).

  2. View From Proskauer: The Availability of Surcharge as Relief for Individual ERISA Fiduciary Breach Claims

    Proskauer Rose LLPAaron FeuerNovember 7, 2014

    The Evolution of Appropriate Equitable Relief Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA generally authorizes aparticipant, beneficiary or fiduciary to sue for ‘‘appropriateequitable relief.’’¹ Prior to Amara, the lowercourts interpreted the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mertens v. Hewitt Assocs., 508 U.S. 248, 16 EBC 2169 (1993) as precluding the recovery of any monetary relief under Section 502(a)(3) because monetary relief was not considered to be equitable relief. Thus, a participant seeking to recover monetary relief from a plan under ERISA typically had to show he was entitled to those benefits under the terms of the plan pursuant to Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA, or was entitled to derivate relief by suing on behalf of the plan pursuant to Section 502(a)(2) of ERISA. In Amara, the Supreme Court ruled that monetary relief is available under Section 502(a)(3).

  3. The ERISA Litigation Newsletter - November 2011

    Proskauer Rose LLPNovember 1, 2011

    The Fourth Circuit ruled that neither plaintiff had standing to sue. While the Fourth Circuit avoided rendering an opinion on the merits, this might be reviewed by the Supreme Court.[27]Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen, 514 U.S. 73 (1995).[28]Mertens v. Hewitt Assoc., 508 U.S. 248 (1993).[29]Mass. Mutual Life. Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134 (1985); Mertens v. Hewitt Assoc., 508 U.S. 248 (1993); Harris Trust & Sav. Bank v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 530 U.S. 238 (2000); Great-West Life & Ins. Annuity Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204 (2002); Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Med. Svcs., 547 U.S. 356 (2006).

  4. When One Door Closes, Another Opens… Maybe. Fourth Circuit Holds That Surcharge Is Not Equitable Relief Available Under ERISA But Paves the way for Unjust Enrichment Claims

    Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLPRick PearlOctober 31, 2023

    t limitation. It remains to be seen how courts interpret this language.There are additional issues with ERISA § 502(a)(3) that the court did not address. The court said little about what exactly plaintiffs needed to do to trace funds. The court also did not address other requirements and limitations in ERISA § 502(a)(3), such as the limitation on recovery to “other,” “appropriate” equitable relief, in order to redress a violation of ERISA or a plan or enforce ERISA or a plan.So, the Fourth Circuit does not require an actual tracing to a plaintiff’s specific funds under these types of claims. But claims are strictly limited to equitable claims for equitable relief, traditionally available in courts of equity concurrent-jurisdiction cases. If a plaintiff believes that a defendant possesses any funds that should belong to the plaintiff, the plaintiff may be able to bring an ERISA § 502(a)(3) claim for unjust enrichment or other claim to recover restitutionary relief.Footnotes534 U.S. 204 (2002).508 U.S. 248 (1993).577 U.S. 136 (2016).

  5. Fourth Circuit Establishes New Standards for Plaintiffs Seeking Unjust Enrichment as an Equitable Remedy under ERISA

    LittlerDarren NadelOctober 6, 2023

    nt surrounding equitable relief under § 502(a)(3), the Fourth Circuit panel’s internal struggle mirrors the difficulty the federal courts in general have had in defining the contours of ERISA’s equitable relief. The majority made clear that Amara’s dicta does not settle the question, so the courts will need to continue to struggle with the process of defining equitable relief. The Fourth Circuit, with its approval of quantum meruit relief in some cases, may have expanded the types of monetary remedies available under ERISA.Footnotes1Rose v. PSA Airlines, No. 21-2207, 2023 WL 5839282, at *1 (4th Cir. Sept. 12, 2023).2 Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) (2018).3 Darren E. Nadel & William Trachman, Ninth Circuit Uncharacteristically Takes the Lead in Limiting Plaintiffs’ Rights to Recover for Breach of Fiduciary Duty under ERISA, Littler (June 16, 2014); Nadel, Ninth Circuit Reverses Course in ERISA Case, Littler (Dec. 19, 2014).4Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 256 (1993).5Rose, 2023 WL 5839282 at *8.6Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 213 (2002).7Montanile v. Bd. of Trs. of Nat. Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan, 577 U.S. 136, 148 n.3 (2016).

  6. What is New After Liu: Unsettled Questions Surrounding SEC Disgorgement

    King & SpaldingCarmen LawrenceJuly 13, 2020

    Id. (citing Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395 (1946)). Id. at *8 (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Assocs., 508 U.S. 248, 256 (1993)) (internal quotations omitted). Id. at 7 (quoting Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 788, 804 (1869) and other cases).

  7. The ERISA Litigation Newsletter - March 2016

    Proskauer Rose LLPJoseph ClarkMarch 29, 2016

    The Court’s most recent decision, in Montanile v.Board of Trustees of National Elevator Industries Health Benefit Plan, arrived this past January. This article briefly summarizes the Supreme Court's prior decisions, the Montanile decision, and implications for plan sponsors and fiduciaries.Prior U.S. Supreme Court Precedent The relevant legal history pertaining to reimbursement clauses begins over two decades ago, with the Supreme Court's ruling in Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248 (1993). In Mertens, the Court explained that the term "equitable relief" in ERISA Section 502(a)(3) is limited to "those categories of relief that were typically available in equity."

  8. Supreme Court Limits ERISA Healthcare Plan’s Reimbursement Rights: What Montanile Really Means

    McGuireWoods LLPRobert CipollaJanuary 27, 2016

    nforcing its lien against a third-party settlement, thus limiting the plan’s recovery to settlement funds still held by or on behalf of the participant: We hold that, when a participant dissipates the whole settlement on nontraceable items, the fiduciary cannot bring a suit to attach the participant’s general assets under [ERISA] §502(a)(3) because the suit is not one for “appropriate equitable relief.”Montanile v. Bd. of Trs. of Nat'l Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan, 577 U. S. ____ , No. 14–723 (Jan. 20, 2016). Under ERISA Section 502(a)(3), a civil action may be brought by a plan participant, beneficiary or fiduciary to enjoin any act or practice that violates any provision of Title I of ERISA or the terms of the plan, or to obtain other “appropriate equitable relief” to redress such violations or to enforce any provisions of Title I or the terms of the plan.Montanile is yet another Supreme Court case that interprets the meaning of “appropriate equitable relief,” following Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248 (1993); Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204 (2002); Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., 547 U.S. 356 (2006); CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U. S. 421 (2011);and US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen, 569 U. S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1537 (2013). Montanile continues the Court’s narrow interpretation of “appropriate equitable relief,” limiting such relief to “those categories of relief that were typically available in equity” before 1938 when the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted when courts of law and equity were separate and “legal remedies” and “equitable remedies” were strictly defined.

  9. Supreme Court Limits ERISA Plans' Reimbursement Rights

    Littler Mendelson, P.C.Noah LipschultzJanuary 22, 2016

    Though such courts merged long before the passage of ERISA, the Supreme Court interpreted “appropriate equitable relief” to mean the categories of relief “typically available in equity.” Mertens v. Hewitt Assocs., 508 US. 248, 256 (1993). This test in turn required an examination of old legal treatises explaining the various forms of equitable relief available in “the days of the divided bench.”

  10. The Sixth Circuit Dramatically Expands the Scope of Relief Available for Denial-of-Benefits Claims Under ERISA

    Sidley Austin LLPDecember 12, 2013

    11Id. at 25-27. 12Id. at 15 and 27, citing Mertens v. Hewitt Assoc., 508 U.S. 255, 256-58 (1993) 13Id. at 26. 14Id. at 30, citing Ford, 154 F.3d at 618-19.