ERISA Disclosure Litigation and Equitable Remedies: One Year After Cigna Corp. v. Amara

Description

The Supreme Court's 2011 Cigna Corp. v. Amara ruling addressed the elements of an ERISA disclosure violation claim, including the status of a plan description and proof necessary to prevail. The Court acknowledged the availability of equitable remedies, such as reformation and a monetary surcharge.

Over the past year, many courts have interpreted Amara. Some courts have ruled that any provision in the summary plan description (SPD) that is not also in the plan document cannot be enforced, and others have more narrowly held that SPD provisions cannot be the basis to enforce the terms of the plan.

The Ninth Circuit's 2012 Skinner v. Northrop Grumman Ret. Plan ruling narrowly construed the Court's broad interpretation of equitable remedies available. And, the Court granted cert to a Third Circuit case over when courts can use equitable principles to override contractual reimbursement provisions.

Further, the effect of Amara combined with judicial interpretations of Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn creates questions about what recovery and remedies are available, based on procedural errors in the individual benefits claim process.

Listen as our panel of ERISA legal specialists provides practical approaches based on post-Amara developments on the status of plan descriptions, the level of proof in disclosure claims, and the availability of equitable remedies in ERISA litigation.