Donna Jean Zirbel v. Ford Motor Company
980 F.3d 520
| 6th Cir. | 2020Background
- Donna Zirbel, ex-spouse of Ford retiree Carl Zirbel, was awarded half the marital portion of Carl’s pension after their 2009 divorce.
- In 2013 she accepted a lump-sum settlement and a $351,690 retroactive payment intended to cover postponed monthly benefits.
- Ford later audited the payment and found it included benefits dating to 1998 (Carl’s retirement) instead of 2009, creating a $243,190 overpayment.
- Ford sought repayment; the plan’s administrator and the plan committee denied Zirbel’s appeals but invited her to apply for a hardship waiver—she did not apply.
- Zirbel spent, invested, and gifted portions of the payment and paid taxes on it; she sued seeking a declaration she could keep the money; Ford counterclaimed for restitution under ERISA.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Ford; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plan committee permissibly required repayment (arbitrary-and-capricious review) | Zirbel: decision was wrong and should be reviewed de novo because a third-party made the initial calculation | Ford: plan grants committee discretionary authority; decision followed plan terms and a principled process; claimant had remedy to seek hardship waiver but did not apply | Court: Affirmed—committee’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious and complied with plan terms; discretionary review applies |
| Whether ERISA §1132(a)(3) permits equitable restitution (lien on particular funds) | Zirbel: plan language (use of “amount”) or dissipation/transfer of funds means only legal money judgment is permissible | Ford: plan’s reimbursement provision created an equitable lien; commingling preserved an equitable claim against accounts | Court: Affirmed—recovery is equitable restitution; lien attached to commingled accounts and plaintiff did not show complete dissipation |
| Whether Ford is equitably estopped from seeking recoupment | Zirbel: Ford’s initial confirmation of the payment induced her to rely and accept the sum | Ford: no fraud or gross negligence; Zirbel knew payment looked high and had access to plan documents and her own calculations, so reliance was not reasonable | Court: Estoppel fails—no fraudulent misrepresentation and reliance was not reasonable or justifiable |
| Whether recoupment is inequitable under Wells | Zirbel: recoupment is unfair given taxes paid, gifts, and investments | Ford: plan terms and fiduciary duty to other beneficiaries justify recovery; tax remedies may be available | Court: Not inequitable—repayment enforced; claimant admitted ability to repay and plan protected other beneficiaries |
Key Cases Cited
- Great‑West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204 (2002) (distinguishes equitable restitution from legal relief; lien on particular funds supports equitable relief)
- Sereboff v. Mid Atl. Med. Servs., 547 U.S. 356 (2006) (ERISA fiduciaries may obtain equitable restitution by enforcing liens on specifically identifiable funds)
- Montanile v. Board of Trustees, 577 U.S. 136 (2016) (traces limits of equitable liens when defendant dissipates funds; commingling preserves lien on account)
- Hall v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Bos., 595 F.3d 270 (6th Cir. 2010) (plan reimbursement provisions can create equitable liens)
- Gilchrest v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., [citation="255 F. App'x 38"] (6th Cir.) (plan language about recovering overpayments supports equitable relief)
- Moon v. Unum Provident Corp., 405 F.3d 373 (6th Cir. 2005) (standard for arbitrary-and-capricious review of plan fiduciary decisions)
- Baker v. United Mine Workers of Am. Health & Ret. Funds, 929 F.2d 1140 (6th Cir. 1991) (deliberate, principled reasoning process required to survive arbitrary-and-capricious review)
- Zirnhelt v. Mich. Consol. Gas Co., 526 F.3d 282 (6th Cir. 2008) (upholding plan decisions that follow unambiguous plan terms)
- Univ. Hosps. of Cleveland v. S. Lorain Merchants Ass'n Health & Welfare Benefit Plan & Tr., 441 F.3d 430 (6th Cir. 2006) (final decision by committee controls review)
- Sprague v. General Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 1998) (limits on reliance and estoppel against ERISA plan terms)
- Trs. of the Mich. Laborers' Health Care Fund v. Gibbons, 209 F.3d 587 (6th Cir. 2000) (elements required for equitable estoppel against an ERISA plan)
- Bloemker v. Laborers' Local 265 Pension Fund, 605 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2010) (equitable estoppel may overcome plan language only in extraordinary circumstances)
- Donati v. Ford Motor Co., Gen. Ret. Plan, Ret. Comm., 821 F.3d 667 (6th Cir. 2016) (similar fact pattern rejecting estoppel where participant evaluated options and relied on plan documents)
- Wells v. U.S. Steel & Carnegie Pension Fund, Inc., 950 F.2d 1244 (6th Cir. 1991) (fairness considerations in recoupment disputes)