Equitable Relief Under Erisa

25 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Powell v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. OF Va.
  780 F.2d 419· 4th Cir.· 1985-12-18 ·cited 65×
  State law claims are preempted by ERISA, and extracontractual and punitive damages are not available under ERISA in these circumstances.
• Sokol v. Jacob L. Bernstein, M.D.
  803 F.2d 532· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-28 ·cited 53×
  A beneficiary of an ERISA plan cannot recover extra-contractual damages, including emotional distress damages, under § 502(a)(3) of ERISA.
• Katsaros v. Cody
  744 F.2d 270· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-29 ·cited 46×
  The court affirmed the finding of fiduciary duty breaches under ERISA for the Bancorporation loan and Green loan expenses, but modified the duration of court-appointed manager tenure.
• Meba Med. & Benefits Plan & Allen Szymczak v. Lago
  867 So. 2d 1184· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-03-03 ·cited 45×
  MEBA Medical & Benefits Plan sued beneficiary Tracey Lago for breach of a subrogation and reimbursement agreement requiring her to repay over $70,000 in medical benefits paid after a 1996 automobile accident. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal held that ERISA preempts ME
• Drinkwater v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
  846 F.2d 821· 1st Cir.· 1988-05-18 ·cited 30×
  Extra-contractual damages are not available under ERISA, and administrative remedies must be exhausted for benefit claims. A state law emotional distress claim, while not preempted, may fail if it does not meet state law requirements.
• Marshall v. Snyder
  572 F.2d 894· 2d Cir.· 1978-02-17 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court had the power to appoint a receiver and grant drastic relief to preserve employee benefit plan assets from dissipation due to fiduciary breaches and violations of ERISA.
• Hancock v. Montgomery Ward Long Term Disability Tr.
  787 F.2d 1302· 9th Cir.· 1986-04-17 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying further discovery and that the Trust's denial of benefits was not arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence.
• Hunt v. Hawthorne Assocs., Inc.
  119 F.3d 888· 11th Cir.· 1997-08-05 ·cited 23×
  Harry Hunt, a retired Eastern Air Lines pilot, sought to recover a lump-sum retirement benefit under the Eastern Air Lines Variable Benefit Retirement Plan for Pilots. Eastern, the Plan's administrator, had refused to pay the benefit after the Plan was amended during Eastern's ba
• Warren v. Soc'y Nat'l Bank
  905 F.2d 975· 6th Cir.· 1990-06-22 ·cited 21×
  The court concurred that the bank failed to show entitlement to dismissal for failure to state a claim.
• Donald LAW v. Ernst & Young
  956 F.2d 364· 1st Cir.· 1992-02-12 ·cited 17×
  The court held that a participant's estoppel claim under ERISA is not actionable if it seeks to modify the plan rather than enforce a plausible interpretation, and that Arthur Young could be treated as a plan administrator for statutory penalty purposes.
• Sec'y OF Dep't OF Labor v. King
  775 F.2d 666· 6th Cir.· 1985-08-19 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court did not err in allowing the Bank to intervene under Rule 24(b)(2) and in awarding attorney's fees under ERISA.
• Onofrieti v. Metro. Life Ins.
  320 F. Supp. 2d 1250· M.D. Fla.· 2004-03-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the administrator's decision to terminate long-term disability benefits was not wrong, and granted summary judgment for the defendant. The court also denied the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim.
• Brock v. Loran W. Robbins
  830 F.2d 640· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the trustees' approval of Amalgamated's fees was imprudent due to lack of investigation, it did not violate ERISA sections 404(a)(1)(A) or 406 because the fees were ultimately reasonable and caused no loss to the fund; however, the imprudent conduct itse
• Fick v. Metro. Life Ins.
  347 F. Supp. 2d 1271· S.D. Fla.· 2004-11-11 ·cited 3×
  The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment for MetLife, finding that MetLife's denial of disability benefits was not 'wrong' under de novo review, thus ending the inquiry.
• Preite v. Charles of the Ritz Grp.
  471 F. Supp. 2d 1271· M.D. Fla.· 2006-09-19 ·cited 1×
  The court held that YSL Beaute, as the successor corporation to the plan sponsor and administrator, is liable for unpaid retirement benefits under ERISA, and that the plaintiff has standing, the claim is not barred by the statute of limitations, and administrative remedies were n
• Romano v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co. (USA)
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-09-28
  The court denied the defendant's motion for leave to file a third-party complaint and amended answer because the motion was filed late, would cause undue delay and prejudice, and would require significant modifications to the existing case schedule.
• Keys v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-10-10
  The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to compel discovery and denied the motion for a protective order, allowing broader discovery for ERISA § 502(a)(3) claims.
• Krauser v. BioHorizons, Inc.
  309 F. Supp. 2d 165· S.D. Fla.· 2012-10-01
  The court held that the plaintiff's action is a timely declaratory judgment action, not a time-barred claim for specific performance, and that the term 'currently being manufactured' in the settlement agreement refers to the time of the agreement's execution.
• Neubarth v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins.
  792 F. Supp. 2d 1360· S.D. Fla.· 2011-06-20
  The court held that a claim for disgorgement of profits is not available under ERISA § 1132(a)(1)(B) when the plan itself does not provide for such a remedy.
• Wanza v. Aetna Health, Inc.
  352 F. Supp. 2d 1320· S.D. Fla.· 2005-01-19
  The court held that an individual beneficiary cannot maintain a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA § 1109, as recovery must be on behalf of the plan as a whole.
• Fick v. Metro. Life Ins.
  320 F. Supp. 2d 1314· S.D. Fla.· 2004-02-03
  The court held that a counterclaim for equitable relief under ERISA is not barred by Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Co. v. Knudson when the funds sought are identifiable and traceable to the defendant.
• Flint v. ABB, Inc.
  229 F. Supp. 2d 1338· S.D. Fla.· 2002-08-12
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for accrued interest on delayed benefits under ERISA because the amended complaint did not adequately allege a violation of the plan or ERISA that would give rise to equitable relief.
• Crosby v. Crosby
  986 F.2d 79· 4th Cir.· 1993-02-17
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in denying the widow past benefits and that she is entitled to all policy benefits, past and future.