ERISA plaintiffs may seek compensation for plan misrepresentations
Cases of negligent misrepresentation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) are common and perhaps inevitable.
August 04, 2013 at 08:00 PM
5 minute read
For more information on the concurring opinion in this case, click here.
Cases of negligent misrepresentation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) are common and perhaps inevitable. A health plan's documents aren't clear, or a health plan employee makes a mistake when representing the plan's scope of coverage, and the result is a patient who finds out too late that a health procedure will not be covered. It was long thought to be the case that plaintiffs who sued over such situations were not entitled to make-whole relief in the form of monetary compensation. If they paid out-of-pocket for medical care that a plan representative mistakenly told them would be covered, they couldn't get that money back.
However, the 7th Circuit's June 13 decision in Kenseth v. Dean Health Plan, Inc. found just the opposite in light of the Supreme Court's 2011 opinion in Cigna Corp. v. Amara, which, the 7th Circuit wrote, “substantially changes our understanding of the equitable relief under 1132(a)(3),” ERISA's civil enforcement provision. In Cigna the Supreme Court said that monetary compensation in certain cases falls within the scope of “appropriate equitable relief” under ERISA.
Deborah Kenseth had been seeking relief in the form of monetary compensation since she launched her lawsuit. “We now know that, in appropriate circumstances, that relief is available,” the 7th Circuit wrote.
Nancy Ross, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery, says the Kenseth opinion is a significant departure coming from a court that is one of the most employer-deferential in the nation on such benefit-misrepresentation claims.
“Each and every circuit is eventually going to have to deal with how Cigna impacts one of the most common types of ERISA claims that employers experience,” Ross says. “This decision sets a precedent and instructs the district courts that people who get incorrect information from a company or an insurance company may well have a remedy under ERISA.”
Accidental Affirmative
When Kenseth's doctor advised her to undergo surgery to correct complications from a gastric band procedure she underwent 18 years earlier, she called Dean Health Plan Inc.'s customer service number and spoke to a customer service representative, which was the only process that Madison, Wis.-based Dean provided to plan participants unsure about whether their plan covered a particular procedure. The customer service rep, perhaps confused about the procedure, told Kenseth that she only would have to make a $300 co-payment.
The day after her surgery, however, Dean denied coverage for the surgery based on its exclusion for services related to surgical treatment of morbid obesity, which the plan did not cover.
Kenseth received a medical bill for $77,974. After Dean refused to change its position, Kenseth sued. The 7th Circuit in 2010 upheld Kenseth's claim under ERISA that Dean breached its fiduciary duty to her.
That earlier Kenseth decision also was significant for ERISA litigation. In 2010 the appeals court found in Kenseth that a plan fiduciary has an affirmative duty to communicate accurate and complete material facts to plan participants. The failure to train customer service staff adequately to field inquiries or to draft plan documents in clear language could constitute a breach of fiduciary duty.
However, the court noted that forms of relief to which Kenseth was entitled were limited. ERISA only authorized equitable relief such as injunctions, mandamus and restitution, and the appeals court said that the relief Kenseth seemed to be seeking was beyond the statute's scope.
Crystal Clear
Lisa Goldman, the lawyer who represents Deborah Kenseth, says that after the court decided Cigna, it became “crystal clear” that plaintiffs could win monetary relief in the form of restitution, disgorgement and surcharge.
“Now the court has decided that equity also means money in the form of restitution, disgorgement or surcharge, so you can force a party to pay money if their actions are allowing themselves or a third party to benefit from their breach of a fiduciary duty,” says Goldman, a partner at Davey & Goldman.
Cigna dealt with pension benefits and intentional misrepresentation claims. It's significant that other circuits have similarly applied Cigna outside the pension context, Goldman says, including the 4th and 5th Circuits. (Cigna came out of the 2nd Circuit.)
As the 7th Circuit has said repeatedly in its Kenseth decisions, plan fiduciaries will not be held liable because a nonfiduciary agent (here, a customer service rep) gives incomplete or mistaken advice to a participant—as long as the plan documents are clear and the fiduciary has properly trained its nonfiduciary agents in how to handle coverage inquiries. Kenseth's claim is based upon Dean's failure to take these reasonable steps.
“This should cause employers to be on their game and take a good hard look at the clarity of their plans and in particular who has the authority to represent the scope of coverage to a participant,” Ross says. “Employers need to take another good hard look at the training they're giving people working within the benefits arena of their organization. Because we see these cases happening all the time.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1New Mexico Levies Record $48M Emissions Fine Against Natural Gas Giant
- 2Nadine Menendez to Stand trial In January on Bribery-Related Offenses
- 3Texas High Court Asked if Texas Retailers Must Have Airport-Level Security
- 4Supreme Court Weighs Applicability of Mail Fraud Statute to Lie on Bidding Contract
- 5The Daniel Penny Verdict and Alvin Bragg’s Legal Derailment
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250