Amara v. Cigna Corp.
925 F. Supp. 2d 242
D. Conn.2012Background
- Amara, on behalf of ~25,000 beneficiaries, sued CIGNA over 1998 pension-plan revisions under ERISA §§ 1022(a), 1024(b), 1054(h).
- Judge Kravitz found CIGNA liable for defective disclosures about Part A to Part B conversion and ordered A + B relief under § 502(a)(1)(B).
- Supreme Court vacated, holding § 502(a)(1)(B) cannot reform the Plan but noted § 502(a)(3) could authorize similar equitable relief; remanded for § 502(a)(3) remedy analysis.
- On remand, the court held that reformation and surcharge are appropriate under § 502(a)(3) and declined to decertify the class.
- The court stayed judgment pending appeal, required a $40 million bond, and directed future attorney-fee briefing; it limited remedies to those previously ordered in light of Amara III.
- Remedial plan: provide revised notices, reform the Plan to grant A + B benefits, pay past-due benefits to retirees, and address prejudgment interest and related notices.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to order A + B under § 502(a)(3) | Amara III authorizes § 502(a)(3) relief closely resembling A + B relief. | Amara III dicta limits relief; § 502(a)(3) may not be invoked to grant A + B | Yes; § 502(a)(3) authorizes reformation and surcharge akin to A + B relief. |
| Availability of reformation and surcharge under § 502(a)(3) | Reformation and surcharge are valid equitable remedies for ERISA notice violations. | Existence and scope of these remedies under § 502(a)(3) are contested. | Both reformation and surcharge are available under § 502(a)(3) on these facts. |
| Classwide viability under Rule 23(b)(2) | Remedies like reformation and surcharge can be implemented classwide; common questions predominate. | Dukes requires monetary damages to be incidental or move to (b)(3); classwide relief may be inappropriate. | Reformation and surcharge can be ordered on a classwide basis; decertification denied. |
| Decertification due to Dukes | Dukes does not compel decertification given classwide equitable relief. | Dukes undermines Robinson-based (b)(2) certification for monetary relief. | Decertification denied; class remains certified under (b)(2) for the reform/surcharge framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amara v. CIGNA Corp., 559 F. Supp. 2d 192 (D. Conn. 2008) (remedy decisions; early ERISA relief framework)
- Amara v. CIGNA Corp., 534 F. Supp. 2d 288 (D. Conn. 2008) (liability/notice disclosures; likelihood of prejudice)
- CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 131 S. Ct. 1866 (2011) (ERISA remedies under § 502(a)(3); dicta and holdings)
- Sereboff v. Mid Atl. Med. Servs., Inc., 547 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2006) (equitable relief framework; basis for § 502(a)(3))
- Knudson, 534 U.S. 204 (U.S. 2002) (distinguishing equitable relief; underlying basis for remedies)
- Mertens v. Hewitt Assocs., 508 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1993) (definition of equitable relief under § 502(a)(3))
- Skinner v. Northrop Grumman Ret. Plan B, 673 F.3d 116 (9th Cir. 2012) (surcharge and causation standards in ERISA)
- Dukes v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (non-incidental monetary damages cannot be certified under (b)(2))
- Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 1998) (incidental damages concept under (b)(2))
- Johnson v. Meriter Health Servs. Emp. Ret. Plan, 702 F.3d 364 (7th Cir. 2012) (reformation with (b)(2) class; mechanical damages)