California Insurance Litigation Blog

The federal courts have for a long time struggled with how to apply the deferential standard of review to actions taken by ERISA plan administrators in light of the United States Supreme Court holding in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (1989).  Firestone held that an ERISA plan administrator with discretionary authority to interpret a plan is entitled to deference in exercising that discretion.  Courts have reached different results on an important issue: is a plan administrator that incorrectly interprets a plan document still entitled to an abuse of discretion standard of review when courts review the administrator’s actions?  The Supreme Court answered that question in the affirmative in Conkright v. Frommert, __ U.S. __ (April 21, 2010).  The Court telegraphed how it would rule when it framed the issue as: “The question here is whether a single honest mistake in plan interpretation justifies stripping the administrator of that deference for subsequent related interpretations of the plan.”

What happens when an ERISA plan provides for a certain level of benefits and the required summary plan description (“SPD”) given to plan participants provides for greater benefits?  The District Court for the Central District of California answered that question recently with its holding in Skinner v. Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan B, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6591 (C.D. Cal. Jan 26, 2010).  In that case, the court held that former employees who received an inaccurate SPD were not entitled to increased retirement benefits as a result of the error.  In so ruling, the court determined that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate “reasonable reliance” on the SPD, which plaintiffs contended did not provide them sufficient notice of the plan’s offset provision.  The district court applied the standard set by the Ninth Circuit in reversing a prior ruling granting a motion for summary judgment wherein the court, in an unpublished decision in Skinner v. Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan B, 334 Fed. Appx. 58, 2009 WL 1416725, *1 (9th Cir. May 21, 2009), concluded:

On remand, the district court should reconsider each of [Plaintiffs'] claims in light of our conclusion that (1) the 2003 SPD's incorporation of the 1998 SPD by reference did not notify [Plaintiffs] that the annuity equivalent offset would apply to their transition benefits, and (2) in terms of [Plaintiffs']  expectations for Part B of the transition benefit, the 1998 SPD's description of the offset's limited applicability controls over the 2003 Restatement's description of the offset as universally applicable. (emphasis original)

In an article appearing in the April 12, 2010 editions of the Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journals, I discuss the impact of the California Fourth Appellate District’s Intergulf Development, LLC. v. Superior Court (Interstate Fire & Casualty Company). Here it is:

In an important vindication of a California policyholder’s right to a jury trial to enforce an insurer’s duty to defend, the California Fourth Appellate District recently held that a liability insurer that fails to promptly acknowledge its insured’s right to independent counsel and begin funding that defense forfeits its rights to binding arbitration under Civil Code section 2860.  Intergulf Development, LLC. v. Superior Court (Interstate Fire & Casualty Company), __ Cal.App.4^th __, 2010 WL 1052745 (March 24, 2010).  In Intergrulf, the court ruled that the insured may proceed first to a jury trial, and, if successful, recover contract and tort damages against the insurer.

In a significant blow to business but a boon for consumers, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that certain class actions barred or limited by state laws may proceed in federal courts. In Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Company, __ U.S. __ (March 31, 2010) a 5-4 majority, led by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court decided that Rule 23 controls when a class-action lawsuit can be filed in federal court, even when such a case in federal court will be decided based on state law. New York’s law and Rule 23, the opinion said, are directly contradictory: both seek to control whether this class-action lawsuit could be filed at all in federal court, but Rule 23 prevails. The Court ruled that if Rule 23’s specific terms are met on who may file a class-action lawsuit, the case may proceed in federal court. The result: Rule 23 does exactly what it says - it empowers a federal court to certify a class in each and every case where the Rule’s criteria are met.

Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates (“Shady Grove”) filed a class action lawsuit in federal court, arguing that Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”) violated New York law in failing to pay interest to policyholders. The district court dismissed the case on the grounds that New York law prevented a class action lawsuit in this context, and the Second Circuit affirmed. This case concerned the application of state law in federal court under the Erie Doctrine, particularly whether New York class action law applies in federal court and whether it conflicts with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Shady Grove argued that Rule 23 is the comprehensive class action rule for federal courts, and that New York law cannot undermine federal court procedure. Allstate claimed that state law applies because plaintiffs would have different rights in state and federal court.