Bergamatto v. Bd. of Trs. of the Nysa Ila Pension Fund, 933 F.3d 257

Nicholas Bergamatto worked as a longshoreman (hired 2000), last credited service year 2010; he applied for pension benefits in April 2013.
The pension is governed by an ERISA-covered plan (2010 plan, later a 2013 amendment, and a 2015 plan that incorporates the amendment).
The 2010 plan contained a clause that excluded employees first hired on/after Oct. 1, 1996 (and not participants by Sept. 30, 2004) from accruing credited service for employment before Oct. 1, 2004.
A 2013 amendment (effective Oct. 1, 2012) authorized accruals for 1996–2004 for participants hired on/after Oct. 1, 1996; the amendment post-dates Bergamatto’s last credited year (2010).
The Board of Trustees is explicitly designated as plan "administrator" and has discretionary authority; the Executive (Pension) Director/Executive Director processed Bergamatto’s initial approval but limited accruals to post-Oct. 2004 years.
Bergamatto exhausted the plan appeal, then sued under ERISA claiming (1) wrongful denial of pre-Oct. 2004 accruals and (2) that Ward (Executive Director) was a de facto administrator who failed to timely provide plan information under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1). District Court granted summary judgment to defendants; the Third Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bergamatto is entitled to pension accruals for service before Oct. 1, 2004	The 2013 amendment (incorporated in 2015 plan) directly authorizes pre-2004 accruals and applies because he was a participant after Oct. 1, 2012	The plans state the provisions in effect during a participant's last year of credited service control; Bergamatto's last year was 2010, so the 2010 terms (which bar pre-2004 accruals) govern	Court held plan language unambiguous; Board's interpretation was reasonably consistent; no accruals for pre-2004 service
Whether Ward can be held personally liable under § 1132(c)(1) as a "de facto" plan administrator for failing to produce plan documents	Ward functioned like an administrator (answered participant questions, provided documents) and never disavowed the title, so he should be liable	ERISA defines "administrator" by plan instrument; Board is the designated administrator; courts should not expand § 1132(c)(1) to reach non-designated persons	Court rejected the de facto-administrator theory as inconsistent with ERISA text, precedent, and narrow construction of penal provisions; Ward not liable

Moench v. Robertson, 62 F.3d 553 (3d Cir. 1995) (factors for assessing reasonableness of an administrator’s interpretation)
Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134 (Sup. Ct. 1985) (counseling against judicially crafting remedies outside ERISA’s enforcement scheme)
Bill Gray Enters., Inc. Emp. Health & Welfare Plan v. Gourley, 248 F.3d 206 (3d Cir. 2001) (framework for plan-language ambiguity and review of interpretations)
Howley v. Mellon Fin. Corp., 625 F.3d 788 (3d Cir. 2010) (standard of review when administrator has discretionary authority)
Ibson v. United Healthcare Servs., Inc., 877 F.3d 384 (8th Cir. 2017) (rejecting de facto plan administrator theory)
Mondry v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 557 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 2009) (rejecting de facto administrator liability under § 1132(c)(1))