Carmen Mays-Williams v. Asa Williams, Jr.
777 F.3d 1035
9th Cir.2015Background
- Asa Williams Sr., a Xerox retiree covered by two ERISA plans (RIGP and Savings Plan), initially named his then-wife Carmen as beneficiary; they divorced in 2006.
- Between 2007 and January 2011 Asa Sr. telephoned Xerox several times asking to designate his son, Asa Jr., as beneficiary; Xerox mailed beneficiary-designation forms which Asa Sr. received but did not sign or return before his death on May 16, 2011.
- After Asa Sr.’s death, both Carmen and Asa Jr. claimed the plan proceeds; the plan fiduciary interpleaded the claimants in federal court rather than decide the dispute.
- Carmen moved for summary judgment arguing Asa Sr. failed to effectuate the change because he did not sign and return the beneficiary forms; the district court granted summary judgment for Carmen.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit examined (1) whether the beneficiary forms were “plan documents” that governed benefit distribution under 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(D), (2) whether the plan administrator exercised discretion to require the forms, and (3) whether telephonic designations could constitute compliance with the governing plan documents.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding the beneficiary forms were not governing plan documents and that a triable issue existed whether Asa Sr.’s phone calls substantially complied with the plan documents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Carmen) | Defendant's Argument (Asa Jr.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether beneficiary-designation forms are "plan documents" under § 1104(a)(1)(D) | Forms are plan documents and impose a signed-return requirement to effect beneficiary changes | Forms are not governing plan documents; the plan agreements and SPDs control | Forms are not plan-governing documents; district court erred to treat them as such |
| Whether Xerox exercised discretionary authority to require signed forms, triggering deferential review | The issuance of forms shows Xerox required signatures; administrator exercised discretion | No evidence administrator imposed the requirement or routinely enforced it; agent involvement undermines claim of formal exercise of discretion | Administrator did not meaningfully exercise discretion by mailing forms (interpleaded instead); review is de novo |
| Whether telephonic beneficiary designation substantially complied with plan documents | Asa Sr. failed to sign required form, so designation invalid | Governing plan documents permit telephone changes for unmarried participants; calls (and call log) can show intent and substantial compliance | There is a genuine issue of material fact whether Asa Sr.’s calls satisfied the plan’s requirements; summary judgment for Carmen reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings & Investment Plan, 555 U.S. 285 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (discusses scope of “documents and instruments governing the plan” under § 1104)
- Hughes Salaried Retirees Action Comm. v. Adm’r of the Hughes Non‑Bargaining Ret. Plan, 72 F.3d 686 (9th Cir. 1995) (limits § 1024(b)(4) "other instruments" to documents that inform participants of benefits and procedures)
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (Sup. Ct. 1989) (standard of review: defer to administrator if plan grants discretionary authority)
- BankAmerica Pension Plan v. McMath, 206 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 2000) (analyzing strict/substantial compliance with plan for beneficiary-designation disputes)
- Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston v. Kennedy, 358 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2004) (filing an interpleader can indicate no exercise of administrator discretion)
- CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 131 S. Ct. 1866 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (clarifies that SPDs communicate plan terms but are not themselves the controlling plan terms)