Most employers know that a married participant in a qualified retirement plan must name a spouse as beneficiary for at least a portion of the benefit unless the spouse signs a notarized written consent or the spouse cannot be located. A recent U.S. District Court decision, Gallagher v. Gallagher, involved a participant who named
Understanding Employee Benefits and key developments in the employee benefits field and items of interest to our clients. MORE
ERISA and Other Benefits Litigation
It Pays to Add a Statute of Limitations to Your Plan’s Claims Procedure
By Stinson LLP on
ERISA requires that plans contain a reasonable claims procedure. Courts have generally required claimants to exhaust that claims procedure before filing a lawsuit. In addition, if the plan gives the plan administrator discretion to interpret the plan and decide claims, a court will often give deference to the plan administrator’s decision. These rules should encourage …
Be Careful How You Word Your Claims Procedure
By Stinson LLP on
In a recent decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, a retiree who had begun work as a union employee and who during his employment was promoted to a salaried position, sued his employer for failing to take into account his service both as a union employee and as…
Self-Funded Plans Need to be Careful in Enforcing Subrogation Rights
By Stinson LLP on
A recent Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision considered the situation of a participant covered under a self‑funded ERISA plan who sustained injuries in a slip and fall accident. The plan paid health benefits for that accident. The participant also obtained compensation by settling a civil lawsuit. Like many self‑funded medical plans, this plan required …
It is Always Good to Follow the Plan’s Claims Procedure in Denying a Claim
By Stinson LLP on
A recent Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision involved high ranking executives who participated in a company’s long-term incentive plan. Under the plan agreements, executives who did not continue employment for a three year performance period forfeited benefits under the plan unless they qualified for a pro-rated award. A pro-rated award was available for participants …
Participants Are Entitled to Specific Information About Their Service Credit Even Before They Are Entitled to Their Pensions
By Stinson LLP on
In a recent federal district court case, Whirlpool Corporation closed a factory and notified a number of former employees about the status of their pensions, including their years of credited service. The corporation’s records differed from the service records maintained by the union. Approximately five years after the factory closed, some of the participants …
If the Tax Withholding is Wrong, Don’t Rely on the Employer to Fix it
By Stinson LLP on
Verizon Communications, Inc. sponsored a number of plans for its foreign employees. These employees were citizens of foreign countries who never worked in the United States. Because these employees never worked or resided in the United States, their employment income and the benefits from their retirement plans were foreign source income not subject to U. …
Not All Courts Agree With The Eighth Circuit
By Stinson LLP on
I blogged recently about an Eighth Circuit decision concluding that an agreement with a single employee cannot be an ERISA plan because a plan necessarily requires more than one participant. Other courts disagree. Recently the United States District Court for the District of Idaho in the case of Knoll v. Moreton Insurance of Idaho, Inc…
Short Term Disability Plan as a Payroll Practice
By Stinson LLP on
I blogged recently about an Eighth Circuit decision where the court concluded that a deferred compensation agreement with a single employee did not constitute an ERISA plan. I warned employers that courts do not always accept an employer’s characterization of a plan or program as being covered by ERISA. Another example of this phenomenon is …
Agreement With Single Employee is Not an ERISA Plan
By Stinson LLP on
If an arrangement is subject to ERISA, state law claims relating to that arrangement are preempted. In some situations, therefore, employers try to argue that a particular arrangement is subject to ERISA. In a recent decision involving a state law breach of contract claim, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a deferred compensation …