Erisa Preemption (29 U.S.C. § 1144(A))

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

• The Sommers Drug Stores Co. Emp. Profit Sharing Tr. v. Corrigan Enters., Inc.
  793 F.2d 1456· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-14 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the jury instruction on fiduciary duty under ERISA was improper, the evidence for actual damages was insufficient, and punitive damages are not recoverable under ERISA. The court also held that ERISA preempts state law claims related to employee benefit plans.
• Sorosky v. Burroughs Corp.
  826 F.2d 794· 9th Cir.· 1987-08-25 ·cited 51×
  The court held that removal jurisdiction was proper because the plaintiff's state law claims were completely preempted by ERISA, creating a federal question. The court also reversed summary judgment on claims for breach of implied-in-fact contract and breach of the implied covena
• Standard OIL Co. OF Cal. v. Agsalud
  633 F.2d 760· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-15 ·cited 29×
  The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempts Hawaii's Prepaid Health Care Act because the Hawaii Act 'relates to' employee benefit plans and does not fall under any statutory exemptions.
• Bd. OF Trs. OF the W. Conf. OF Teamsters Pension Tr. Fund v. H.F. Johnson, Inc.
  830 F.2d 1009· 9th Cir.· 1987-10-16 ·cited 27×
  Joint venturers can be held personally liable for their business's withdrawal obligations under ERISA, and ERISA preempts state non-claim statutes that bar such actions against a decedent's estate.
• McKINNON v. Blue Cross AND Blue Shield OF Alabama
  935 F.2d 1187· 11th Cir.· 1991-07-12 ·cited 25×
• Daniel v. Eaton Corp.
  839 F.2d 263· 6th Cir.· 1988-02-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that state law claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel are preempted by ERISA, and that the district court erred by conducting a trial de novo instead of reviewing the plan administrator's decision under the arbitrary and capricious standard.
• Sav. & Profit Sharing Fund OF Sears Emps. v. Gago
  717 F.2d 1038· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-31 ·cited 24×
  A state court order dividing marital property, including pension benefits, is not preempted by ERISA's anti-alienation provision when it does not conflict with clear federal objectives.
• Simmons v. Willcox
  911 F.2d 1077· 5th Cir.· 1990-09-17 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies and lacked evidence of intentional interference with benefits, thus affirming the summary judgment.
• Ellis Nat'l Bank OF Jacksonville v. Irving Tr. Co.
  786 F.2d 466· 2d Cir.· 1986-03-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's (ERISA) anti-alienation provision prohibits an employer from imposing a constructive trust on pension funds traceable to an employee's fraudulent activities, even when the employer seeks to recover those funds.
• In re Kincaid v. Watson
  917 F.2d 1162· 9th Cir.· 1990-10-25 ·cited 14×
  The concurring judge expresses doubt that a debtor's interest in an ERISA-qualified pension plan is property of the bankruptcy estate, arguing ERISA's restrictions should be considered 'applicable nonbankruptcy law' under 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2).
• Hydrostorage, Inc. v. N. Cal. Boilermakers Local Joint Apprenticeship Comm.
  891 F.2d 719· 9th Cir.· 1989-12-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and that the administrative order was preempted by ERISA because the apprenticeship standards and fund constituted an employee welfare benefit plan.
• United States Steel Corp. Plan FOR Emp. Ins. Benefits v. Musisko
  885 F.2d 1170· 3d Cir.· 1989-09-21 ·cited 8×
  The district court's injunction and declaratory judgment are barred by the Anti-Injunction Act because ERISA does not expressly authorize federal courts to enjoin state court proceedings.
• NEW York State Teamsters Conf. Pension & Ret. Fund v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp.
  591 F.2d 953· D.C. Cir.· 1979-01-10 ·cited 7×
  The court held that ERISA does not apply to the merger agreement because the cause of action arose from the repudiation of the agreement before ERISA's effective date.
• M.C. Sturgis v. Herman Miller, Inc.
  943 F.2d 1127· 9th Cir.· 1991-09-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that ERISA does not preempt California Civil Code § 3111, which provides a mechanic's lien to employee benefit trust funds for unpaid employer contributions.
• Seamon v. M.L. Vaughan
  921 F.2d 1217· 11th Cir.· 1991-01-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that ERISA preempts state law regarding attorney fees in employee benefit plans, and that attorney fees are allowable under ERISA. However, the court remanded the case for specific findings of fact regarding the amount of attorney fees awarded.
• Hayden v. TEXAS-U.S. Chem. Co.
  681 F.2d 1053· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's judgment was vacated because it failed to adequately determine whether the employee's claim was governed by ERISA or state law, and lacked sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law.
• Shofer v. Hack Co.
  970 F.2d 1316· 4th Cir.· 1992-06-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations because the initial state court filing was in a court that lacked jurisdiction over the ERISA claims, thus precluding equitable tolling.
• Metro. Life Ins. v. Williams
  82 F. Supp. 2d 1346· M.D. Fla.· 1999-12-30 ·cited 1×
  A divorce decree's designation of a life insurance beneficiary, if it qualifies as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), is not preempted by ERISA and will prevail over a subsequent beneficiary designation.
• Allen v. First UNUM Life Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-02-17
  Dr. Marcus Allen, a radiologist, sued insurance providers Provident Life, First Unum Life, and The Unum Group for breach of contract after they terminated his disability benefits in 2015, claiming he was no longer disabled from vision problems despite previously approving his tot
• Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. v. Smith
  180 F. Supp. 2d 1311· M.D. Fla.· 2002-01-04
  The court held that the ERISA claim (Count IV) against the law firm could proceed, but the state law claims for tortious interference and conversion (Counts V and VI) were preempted by ERISA.
• Albright v. Union Bankers Ins.
  85 F. Supp. 2d 1302· S.D. Fla.· 1999-07-19
  State law claims related to an employee welfare benefit plan are preempted by ERISA if the plan qualifies as an ERISA plan.
• Laborers' Pension Fund & Laborers' Welf. Fund of the Health & Welf. Dep't of the Constr. & Gen. Laborers' Dist. Council of Chicago & Vicinity v. Concrete Structures OF THE Midwest, Inc.
  999 F.2d 1209· 7th Cir.· 1993-08-05
  CSM, as a general contractor, is liable for its subcontractor's unpaid fringe benefit contributions under ERISA and the collective bargaining agreement.
• Tingey v. Pixley-Richards W., Inc.
  958 F.2d 908· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-10
  The court held that Pixley-Richards West, Inc. is not entitled to attorney's fees under ERISA § 502(g)(1) despite prevailing on the preemption issue.