Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against MetLife, the administrator of a long-term disability insurance plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., seeking to recover disability benefits. The court concluded that the six-year limitations period began to run on plaintiff's ERISA claim when the cause of action accrues; plaintiff's ERISA complaint in 2012 for benefits from May 1, 1997 forward is time-barred; the court rejected plaintiff's argument that his submission of post-1997 documentation is a new claim for benefits; and MetLife did not waive any defense based on the statute of limitations by failing to specify untimeliness as a basis for denying the claim after its courtesy review. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment. View "Witt v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al." on Justia Law

After defendant Elem suffered injuries in a car accident, she and her attorney conspired to hide and disburse settlement funds from an employee welfare benefit plan she received after the accident. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment and the district court granted summary judgment for the employer, as well as awarded attorney's fees and costs to the employer. The court affirmed, concluding that the district court had the authority to sanction defendants for their bad faith. The court also concluded that defendant's claim that the district court misapplied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 70 was moot and dismissed the appeal. View "AirTran Airways, Inc. v. Elem, et al." on Justia Law

In 2000, physicians and physician associations imitated a group of class actions against various providers of health plans, which were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation. This appeal involves this complex, twelve-year-old multidistrict litigation, a related multidistrict litigation pending in another federal district, and whether the district court reasonably interpreted the Settlement Agreement in the first action. The court affirmed the Injunction as to plaintiffs' Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961, and antitrust claims and as to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., claims based on the denial or underpayment of benefits following the Settlement Agreement's Effective Date. On remand, the district court will need to determine which of plaintiffs' ERISA claims fall on the permissible side of the line, and reconsider the assessment of sanctions. View "Medical Assoc. of GA, et al. v. Wellpoint, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal of her putative class action complaint brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. The court concluded that, based on the record to date and at this Rule 12(b)(6) juncture, the district court erred in finding that the three-year limitations period applied to plaintiff's claims in Count 2. The court concluded, however, that plaintiff's claims in Count 2 were time-barred by ERISA's six-year period of limitations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Fuller v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

The Commission appealed the district court's order preliminarily enjoining him from enforcing several provisions of the Georgia Code as preempted by Section 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1144(a). The court found that AHIP had standing to challenge Section 4, 5, and 6 of the Insurance Delivery Enhancement Act of 2011 (IDEA), O.C.G.A. 33-24-59.5; AHIP's suit was not barred by the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. 1341; AHIP was likely to succeed on the merits of its claims where the challenged IDEA provisions were preempted by ERISA Section 514; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that AHIP met its burden to show irreparable injury and that the balance of equities weighed in favor of a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "America's Health Ins. Plan v. Hudgens" on Justia Law

The PAPER COMPANY's creditors successfully petitioned the Bankruptcy Court for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court then granted the PAPER COMPANY's motion to transform the Chapter 7 case into a Chapter 11 proceeding. While the Chapter 11 case was pending, the PBGC brought an action against the PAPER COMPANY. At issue on appeal was whether, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., the trustee of a corporation that is a contributing sponsor and is in bankruptcy can maintain an action for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate and the estate's unsecured creditors against the corporation's former owner (as a former member of the controlled group) for liabilities arising from the termination of a pension plan. The court held that the answer is no. The court concluded that ERISA's funding requirements were put in place for the benefit of plan beneficiaries, not for the protection of a bankrupt plan sponsor's unsecured creditors. The trustee's complaint failed to state a claim for relief because it was brought for the benefit of the bankrupt's unsecured creditors. View "Durango-Georgia Paper Co., et al. v. H.G. Estate, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., alleging that LINA violated the disability insurance policy's terms and ERISA requirements - in part because LINA ignored the SSA process and the information it generated. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of LINA. Because LINA did not have the evidence presented to the SSA when it denied her last appeal - and in fact could not have had that evidence when it initially denied her claim - the court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to remand plaintiff's claims to LINA for its consideration of the evidence presented to the SSA. View "Melech v. Life Ins. Co. of North America, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs claimed that the fiduciaries of their retirement plan violated the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., in ways that damaged their efforts to stockpile savings for their winter years. The court held that because plaintiffs have not pleaded facts establishing that defendants abused their discretion by following the Plan's directions, they have not stated a valid claim for breach of the duty of prudence. The court also held that plaintiffs have failed to state a viable breach of loyalty claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' third and last amended complaint. View "Lanfear, et al. v. Home Depot, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

This appeal involved an anti-cutback rule in section 204(g) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1054(g). Specifically, section 204(g)'s anti-cutback rule forbid, with a few exceptions, a pension plan amendment that decreased a participant's "accrued benefit." At issue was whether this pension plan amendment violated the anti-cutback rule when it changed the calculation of that Social Security offset for participants who had not yet reached age 52, the plan's earliest retirement age, at the time of the amendment. The court held that it did not where Amendment Eight did not come within the scope of ERISA's anti-cutback rule and the anti-cutback rule protected only an accrued benefit from being reduced by plan amendment. The anti-cutback rule did not protect a mere expectation based on anticipated years of future employment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Cinotto v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

IPS appealed the district court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration and stay plaintiffs' claims against it. Plaintiffs cross-appeal, disputing the preemption of their claims under the Employment Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., and alleging a lack of federal jurisdiction. The court found that jurisdiction was proper and affirmed the district court's denial of IPS's motion to compel arbitration.