Angevine v. Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan
646 F.3d 1034
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Angevine, a salaried employee of BEC, is a participant in the ERISA-governed Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan (the Plan).
- The Plan contains a Change in Control provision that grants a +5/+5 enhancement for involuntary terminations within three years of a change in control.
- ABC was acquired by InBev in 2008, constituting the Change in Control; BEC was later sold to Blackstone in December 2009.
- Angevine received a November 27, 2009 email stating he would stop accruing benefits after the sale and addressed +5/+5 eligibility; he was told you would not be eligible for +5/+5 after separation or post-sale.
- Angevine filed an ERISA § 1132(a)(1)(B) class action on the sale date seeking the +5/+5 enhancement and related relief.
- The district court dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; the court of appeals affirms, holding exhaustion was available and not futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exhaustion was required or excused | Angevine contends futility or lack of remedy excused exhaustion. | Appellees argue the Plan provides an available administrative remedy and futility not shown. | Exhaustion required; no futility shown. |
| Whether repudiation excused ERISA exhaustion | Repudiation could permit suit without exhausting remedies. | Repudiation is a separate accrual question, not a basis to bypass exhaustion. | Repudiation does not excuse exhaustion; exhaustion still required. |
| Whether the Plan provides an administrative remedy for current or future benefits | Email suggested no need to pursue plan remedies and excused exhaustion. | Plan requires an application for distribution as a condition precedent to any distribution. | Plan provides an administrative remedy; exhaustion required. |
| Whether the plan's +5/+5 entitlement hinges on early review outcomes | The +5/+5 depends on an administrative determination consistent with Plan terms. | The determination is internal and subject to plan procedures. | Plan procedures govern the +5/+5 determination; exhaustion remains necessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chorosevic v. MetLife Choices, 600 F.3d 934 (8th Cir. 2010) (exhaustion prerequisite under ERISA plans)
- Galman v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 254 F.3d 768 (8th Cir. 2001) (benefits-exhaustion rationale and purposes)
- Brown v. J.B. Hunt Transp. Serv., Inc., 586 F.3d 1079 (8th Cir. 2009) (exhaustion futility standard narrow; certainty of denial required)
- Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Beckham, 138 F.3d 325 (8th Cir. 1998) (repudiation accrual; relationship to exhaustion)
- Moses.com Sec., Inc. v. Comprehensive Software Sys., Inc., 406 F.3d 1052 (8th Cir. 2005) (consideration of provisions outside pleadings when plan grounds asserted)