Geoffrey Moyle v. Liberty Mutual Retirement Plan
823 F.3d 948
9th Cir.2016Background
- Liberty Mutual acquired Golden Eagle in 1997; Golden Eagle did not have a retirement plan before the acquisition.
- During bidding, Liberty Mutual represented (or allowed the impression) that Golden Eagle employees would receive past service credit under Liberty Mutual’s retirement plan.
- The Rehabilitation Agreement (not distributed to employees) expressly limited Golden Eagle past service credit to eligibility, vesting, early retirement and spousal benefits, and excluded accrual; this exclusion did not appear in enrollment materials or SPDs given to employees.
- Liberty Mutual employees and facilitators orally told many Golden Eagle employees their prior years would count for pension purposes; several employees stayed because of those assurances.
- Liberty Mutual’s Retirement Plan language (Article 2.16(d) and related definitions) was interpreted by the plan administrator to exclude pre‑10/1/1997 Golden Eagle service for benefit accrual, and Liberty Mutual denied multiple claims for accrual credit.
- Procedural posture: district court granted summary judgment to Liberty Mutual on all claims and certified a class; Ninth Circuit affirmed on plan‑terms and SPD‑reliance issues, reversed as to equitable relief under § 1132(a)(3), and remanded for factual determinations about equitable remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs are entitled to past service credit for benefit accrual under the plan (§ 1132(a)(1)(B)) | Moyle et al.: oral representations and employees’ expectations establish entitlement | Liberty: plan language excludes pre‑10/1/1997 Golden Eagle service for accrual; administrator’s interpretation reasonable | Held for Liberty: plan language reasonably read to exclude Golden Eagle pre‑acquisition service from accrual (affirmed) |
| Whether plaintiffs may pursue equitable relief (reformation, surcharge) under § 1132(a)(3) alongside § 1132(a)(1)(B) | Plaintiffs: Amara permits equitable relief (reformation/surcharge) even when § 1132(a)(1)(B) is pleaded | Liberty: Varity/earlier precedents bar § 1132(a)(3) if § 1132(a)(1)(B) provides adequate remedy | Held for Plaintiffs on this point: Amara controls — plaintiffs may seek § 1132(a)(3) relief as alternative; district court reversed and remanded for factual determinations on equitable relief (reversed in part) |
| Whether Liberty Mutual violated SPD disclosure rules by failing to state that past service would not count for accrual and whether plaintiffs proved reliance/harm from SPDs | Plaintiffs: SPDs omitted material limitations; omission caused harm and justified reformation/surcharge | Liberty: SPDs reasonably described limits; any reliance/harm stems from oral statements not SPDs | Held: Liberty failed to disclose accrual exclusion in SPDs (material omission), but plaintiffs did not prove detrimental reliance or harm tied to the SPDs — summary judgment for Liberty affirmed on SPD claim |
| Whether class certification was proper and whether suit was time‑barred | Plaintiffs: common, classwide misrepresentations and uniform harm justify class; statute of limitations not a bar | Liberty: individual variations in representations defeat commonality/typicality; suit time‑barred | Held: class certification affirmed (district court did not abuse discretion); statute‑of‑limitations argument not dispositive on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Firestone v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (1989) (standard for judicial review of benefits denials; de novo unless plan grants discretion)
- Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489 (1996) (§ 1132(a)(3) is equitable "catchall" available when other ERISA remedies are inadequate)
- CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U.S. 421 (2011) (equitable remedies such as reformation and surcharge are available under § 1132(a)(3) for disclosure breaches even when § 1132(a)(1)(B) is also pleaded)
- Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2006) (treatment of conflict of interest in abuse‑of‑discretion review)
- Canseco v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr., 93 F.3d 600 (9th Cir. 1996) (administrator’s interpretation reviewed for reasonableness under abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- Gatti v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 415 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2005) (requiring material, probative evidence of conflict to trigger de novo review)