On May 16, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, —S.Ct.—, 2011 WL 1832824 (2011), a decision much anticipated by the ERISA litigation bar and ERISA plan fiduciaries. While the full impact of Amara on circuit precedent will not be known for some time, the case addresses a number of longstanding and significant issues that frequently arise in ERISA litigation. In particular, the Court addressed the scope of two of ERISA’s remedial provisions, §§502(a)(1)(B) and 502(a)(3).

Parties frequently litigate the scope of these two remedial provisions because §502(a)(1)(B) allows for monetary relief, but restricts the claims that may be brought under that section to claims for benefits under the terms of the plan, whereas §502(a)(3) allows for plaintiffs to sue for a broader set of wrongs, but provides for “appropriate equitable relief” only, which the Supreme Court, in a series of cases, has narrowly circumscribed. Three of the most notable holdings by the Amara Court are as follows:

• ERISA §502(a)(1)(B), which authorizes participants to assert claims for payment of benefits under the terms of the plan, allows a court to enforce a benefit plan as written, but does not permit a court to reform the terms of the plan, even to remedy violations of other provisions of ERISA;

• Summary plan descriptions, and other summaries of ERISA plans, are not part of the “plan,” and, therefore, their terms cannot be enforced under ERISA §502(a)(1)(B); and

• Courts cannot award relief under ERISA §502(a)(3) for “appropriate equitable relief” based on a finding of “likely harm” to a class of plan participants; rather, the court may award relief only to participants who have demonstrated causation and actual harm.