Equitable Reformation Is An Available Remedy Under ERISA § 502(a)(3)
YOUNG v. VERIZON'S BELL ATLANTIC CASH BALANCE PLAN (AUGUST 10, 2010)
In 1996, Bell Atlantic replaced its Bell Atlantic Management Pension Plan, a defined annuity pension plan, with the Bell Atlantic Cash Balance Plan. The old pension plan included a lump sum option for certain employees that used an enhanced discount rate. The new Plan contained provision for converting employees' benefits from the pension plan to the new Plan. One key to the conversion was an employee's "transition factor." The transition factor was a multiplier that increased as an employee's age and years of service increased. Unfortunately for Bell Atlantic, the Plan's formula for computing an employee's opening balance contained the transition factor twice. The Plan Summary and all communications to employees described the formula correctly -- using the transition factor only once. The company also recognized the error and corrected it in a 1998 version of the Plan. Cynthia Young retired in 1997 after 32 years of service. After receiving her lump sum benefit, Young sought administrative review. She made two claims: that the company failed to apply the transition factor twice and that the company improperly applied the enhanced discount rate from the earlier pension plan. The company denied Young's claim. Young filed suit pursuant to ERISA § 502(a). The company counterclaimed for equitable reformation to correct the "scrivener's error." Magistrate Judge Denlow (N.D. Ill.) upheld the company's denial of the discount rate claim as not arbitrary and capricious and granted the equitable reformation counterclaim. Young appeals.
In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum, and Tinder affirmed. The Court first addressed both party's statute of limitations arguments. The parties and the Court agreed that Pennsylvania's four-year limitations period applies. At issue was when the claims accrued. The Court concluded that the complaint and counterclaims were both timely. Young's claim did not accrue until she had a "clear repudiation" of her demand, which occurred in 2005. Although the company knew about the drafting mistake in 1997, the Court concluded that its claim for reformation did not accrue at that time. It was not on notice of the need to reform because it had always treated the second transition factor inclusion as a mistake. It paid benefits and communicated with its employees on that basis. It corrected the mistake and no one complained until Young brought suit. On the merits, the Court noted that § 502(a)(3) of ERISA permits "appropriate equitable relief." Although the Court has never addressed the propriety of equitable reformation, other circuits have and have either concluded that it is available or at least not foreclosed. Relying on those cases and the Court's own cases on ambiguous plan language, the Court concluded that equitable reformation is permitted when there is clear and convincing evidence of a scrivener’s error that does not reflect participants' reasonable expectations. The Court found such evidence present here. It relied on the drafting history, the communications and course of dealing between the company and its employees, the plan statements to participants, and the lack of any complaint until Young. The Court then considered and rejected the traditional equitable defenses raised by Young (good faith, unclean hands, and laches). Finally, the Court used principles of contract construction and interpretation, particularly that specific provisions control general provision, to reject Young's enhanced discount rate claim. The Court found that the most reasonable reading of the Plan required the enhanced rate.
Kenneth Nelson owned two car dealerships -- Auto Plaza and Auto Mall. In 1989, he and Richard Curia entered into an agreement whereby Curia agreed to pay $100,000 for 1000 (of 8180) shares in Auto Plaza and 144 (of 1200) shares in Auto Mall. The agreement also gave Curia three separate options to buy additional stock in both dealerships, up to 100% of each. Curia exercised the first of the options in 1990. A few years later, in 1993, Nelson and Curia modified the agreement, apparently because the total number of shares in the two companies had increased. The 1993 agreement also provided that Curia could purchase additional shares "upon those terms and conditions subsequently agreed upon." A later agreement terminated Curia's rights to acquire any additional Auto Mall stock. In 2005, however, Curia attempted to exercise his options to acquire all of the stock in Auto Plaza. Nelson filed a declaratory judgment action contesting Curia's right. Curia counterclaimed for breach of contract. The court granted summary judgment to Curia. Nelson appeals..jpg)
Stephen Bandak was employed by an Eli Lilly company in England, his native country, from 1978 to 1995. He participated in the company's retirement plan. He was transferred to the United States in 1995. The company told him, upon his enrollment in the U. S. company's plan, that his benefits in that plan would be based on years of employment retroactive to 1978. The plan also provided that benefits would be reduced by the actuarial equivalence of any other benefits under a “qualified defined benefit plan” maintained by an Eli Lilly company. When Bandak retired in 2004, the company took the position that his benefits under the English company's plan were benefits under a qualified defined benefit plan and were thus properly deducted from his U.S. pension benefits. Bandak sued the company under ERISA. Judgment was entered in his favor for both damages and an injunction relating to future benefit payments. The court also concluded that Lilly's position was not substantially justified and awarded attorneys’ fees. Eli Lilly appeals.
Roger Twenhafel owns a business that manufactures wood cabinets. He stores some of his wood inventory outdoors. Just before a violent storm hit in late 2006, he covered the inventory with a tarp and secured it with heavy blocks and beams. In spite of this effort, the storm lifted and carried the tarp away. The inventory was damaged. Twenhafel made a claim against State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company. The policy covered all losses except those specifically excluded. State Auto denied the claim, relying on an exclusion for rain damage to property "in the open." Twenhafel brought suit for breach of the insurance policy. The district court found that "in the open" was not ambiguous and it meant property that was exposed to the elements with no protection. The court granted summary judgment to Twenhafel and awarded prejudgment interest at 6.98% and postjudgment interest at .96%. State Auto appeals..jpg)
The plaintiffs, Bonnie and Connie Roth, were insurance agents. Each had an agency agreement with American Family Mutual Insurance Company. The agreement provided that it could be terminated for "undesirable performance" only with six months notice and an opportunity to correct. It also provided that it could be terminated without notice if an agent engaged in "dishonest, disloyal or unlawful" conduct. One of the agents signed an applicant's name on a insurance policy application at the applicant’s request. The other signed the name of a different agent on a policy certification, also with authorization. American Family terminated their agency agreements. The Roths brought suit for breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment to American Family. The Roths appeal.
In 1992, Amoco Chemical Company (“Amoco”) and Catalyst Resources, Inc. (“CRI”) entered into a long-term supply agreement for polypropylene catalyst. CRI agreed to build a facility for production of the catalyst – Amoco agreed to fund it over time with its purchase commitments. The contract was quite long and detailed. Article 17 was a Right of First Refusal – it provided that neither CRI nor its parent could dispose of CRI or the plant without first giving Amoco a right to purchase. Article 17 did not apply to a disposition to another company wholly owned by CRI’s parent. Article 19 dealt with assignments. It provided that neither party could assign the agreement without the consent of the other. Article 19 permitted an assignment, without consent, by Amoco to any company owned 50% or more by its parent and by CRI to any company owned 100% by its parent. Both companies underwent significant changes over the following fifteen years. Among the many changes on the Amoco side was its sale by its then parent in 2005 to INEOS US Intermediate Holding Company. The company was renamed INEOS Polymers (“INEOS”). Meanwhile, on the CRI side, the assets were sold in 1993 to Mallinckrodt and sold again in 1998 to Engelhard. On both occasions, Amoco waived its Article 17 right of first refusal. In 2006, BASF acquired Engelhard and renamed it BASF Catalysts (“BASF”). INEOS advised BASF and Engelhard that the transaction triggered its Article 17 right of first refusal. BASF disagreed. INEOS brought an action, alleging breach of contract and tortious interference. The district court dismissed the complaint. It held that the sale of Amoco to INEOS was an assignment to a party not owned 50% or more by Amoco’s parent and thus triggered Article 19. INEOS was, therefore, an impermissible assignee of the contract and could not sue to enforce it. INEOS appeals.
Robert Holmes was an employee of the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) in Minnesota from 1970 until 1992. He sued the USPS under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). The case settled in 1994. Shortly thereafter, he returned to the employ of USPS in Indiana. In 2003, Holmes filed a complaint with the EEOC that the USPS failed to accommodate a disability, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. In mid-2004, Holmes and USPS resolved their dispute at an EEOC mediation. The settlement agreement a) placed Holmes on twenty hours per week administrative leave/twenty hours per week leave-without-pay status through October 2004 and retroactive to January 2003, b) specified his salary, and c) required him to retire or resign in October 2004. Holmes filed this suit to enforce the settlement agreement, complaining that several actions taken by USPS after the settlement violated its terms. The district court granted summary judgment to USPS. Holmes appeals.