D'Iorio v. Winebow, Inc.
68 F. Supp. 3d 334
E.D.N.Y2014Background
- Plaintiff sues Defendant under ERISA: failure to disclose SPD and misrepresentations related to LTD and life insurance benefits.
- Defendant previously moved to dismiss 502(c)(1) and 502(a)(3); 12(b)(6) dismissal narrowed to remaining 502(a)(3) claim.
- LTD plan changed from United of Omaha to Unum in 2009; benefits were calculated on recoverable draw, excluding commissions.
- SPD for the 2009 Unum LTD Plan allegedly not furnished or not properly made available; Plaintiff claims reliance on disclosures and access via intranet/SharePoint.
- PowerPoint presentation (12/1/2008) and subsequent communications allegedly misrepresented LTD terms; Plaintiff seeks surcharge damages under ERISA 502(a)(3).
- Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant’s summary-judgment motion; ultimately, 502(a)(3) claim survives on certain misrepresentation theories and disclosure issues, with damages issues to be tried.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SPD disclosure violated ERISA § 104(b)(1)(A). | D’lorio argues SPD not properly furnished or accessible. | Defendant says SPD mailed or posted on SharePoint satisfied rule. | Genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment denied on this theory. |
| Whether Defendant acted as a fiduciary in presenting the PowerPoint and making LTD/Life Insurance representations. | Defendant's communications about future benefits were fiduciary duties breaches. | Materials prepared by Mercer; actions ministerial; no fiduciary duty. | Defendant can be liable as fiduciary for the PowerPoint representations; factual questions remain. |
| Whether the PowerPoint statements regarding LTD benefits were material misrepresentations. | Statements about 66 2/3% of earnings could be misleading without noting commission exclusion. | Statements were not material or are omissions not actionable. | Misrepresentation found actionable for LTD; life-insurance related misrepresentation barred; remaining misrepresentation issues left for trial. |
| What damages are available under the surcharge remedy and scope of future damages. | Surcharge may include consequential/punitive damages; future benefits may be recoverable. | Surcharge limited to make-whole; uncertain future damages. | Surcharge damages allowed in principle; future damages and punitive damages require trial development; Rule 56(g) relief denied. |
| Whether the Court should reconsider its dismissal of estoppel and reformation claims. | Law of the case should be reconsidered in light of new theory. | No basis to revisit prior ruling. | Court declines to reconsider. |
Key Cases Cited
- Devlin v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 274 F.3d 76 (2d Cir.2001) (affidavit-like misrepresentations regarding plan terms actionable under ERISA fiduciary duty)
- CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U.S. 421 (2011) (establishes surcharge as an equitable remedy under ERISA § 502(a)(3))
- Weinreb v. Hosp. for Joint Diseases Orthopaedic Inst., 404 F.3d 167 (2d Cir.2005) (ERISA disclosure duties; prejudice/actual receipt considerations)
- Buckley v. Deloitte & Touche USA LLP, 888 F.Supp.2d 404 (S.D.N.Y.2012) (summaries of burdens and standards in ERISA fiduciary-duty context)