Wagner Header

The Wagner Law Group Description 

The Wagner Law Group, A Professional Corporation, is a nationally recognized ERISA & employee benefits, estate planning, employment, labor & human resources practice. 

 

Established in 1996, The Wagner Law Group has 22 attorneys engaged exclusively in employee benefits, estate planning and employment law. Six of our attorneys are AV rated by Martindale-Hubbell as having very high to preeminent legal abilities and ethical standards. The firm is among the largest ERISA boutiques in the country. Our practice is national in scope, with clients in more than 40 states and several foreign countries.

 

 

 

 

 

Contact Info

The Wagner Law Group

 

  Integrity | Excellence

  

Massachusetts Office 

Tel: (617) 357-5200 

Fax: (617) 357-5250 

99 Summer Street 

13th Floor

Boston, MA 02110


Florida Office 

Tel: (561) 293-3590
Fax: (561) 293-3591
7108 Fairway Drive
Suite 125
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418

   

San Francisco Office

Tel: (415) 625-0002

Fax: (415) 358-8300

315 Montgomery Street

Suite 904

San Francisco, CA 94104

 

www.wagnerlawgroup.com

 

 

 

 

April 23, 2015

 

 Health and Welfare Law Alert

 

 

 

Employer Breached Fiduciary Duty by Issuing Inaccurate SPD

 

 

 

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that an employer breached its fiduciary duty by furnishing a participant with a misleading summary plan description ("SPD") In Stiso v. International Steel Group, a participant sued his employer, alleging an ERISA breach of fiduciary duty for the refusal to increase long-term disability ("LTD") benefits in accordance with the terms of the SPD.

 

Background. The plaintiff had been receiving LTD benefits under his employer's disability insurance plan and believed that he was entitled to a 7% per year cost-of-living adjustment as described in the plan and the SPD. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the LTD insurer increase in his benefits. In response, the LTD insurer denied this request, and the plaintiff sued his employer and the insurer for failure to pay his full benefits and for breach of fiduciary duty.

 

The lower court granted the defendants' request for summary judgment and dismissed the case, finding that the terms of the LTD plan did not provide for the 7% annual increase sought by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff's request for equitable relief was not warranted. The plaintiff appealed this decision to the Sixth Circuit.

 

Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit ruled that the employer had "breached its fiduciary duty by issuing a summary plan description that did not accurately reflect the terms of the plan." Thus, the court ruled that the employer (i) functioned as an ERISA fiduciary when it prepared and furnished the LTD plan's SPD to participants, and (ii) breached its fiduciary duty by furnishing the participant with a misleading SPD.

 

Next, the court confirmed that the insurer had a fiduciary duty to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the court ruled that the insurer had breached its fiduciary duty by interpreting the plan in a manner that served its own financial interests and was contrary to the representations made in the SPD.

 

Based on these breaches of fiduciary duty, the Sixth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case to the lower court where the plaintiff is entitled to seek appropriate equitable relief.

 

Action Steps for Employers. As demonstrated in Stiso, inaccurate SPDs can lead to unexpected liabilities for employers. Therefore, it is critical that employers review their plans' SPDs to ensure that they include accurate descriptions of covered benefits and any exclusions of coverage.

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This Newsletter is protected by copyright. Material appearing herein may be reproduced with appropriate credit.

 

This Newsletter is provided for information purposes by The Wagner Law Group to clients and others who may be interested in the subject matter, and may not be relied upon as specific legal advice.  This material is not to be construed as legal advice or legal opinions on specific facts. Under the Rules of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, this material may be considered advertising.