Guerra-Delgado v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico
774 F.3d 776
1st Cir.2014Background
- Guerra worked for Banco de Ponce (1980–1988), later joined BPPR in 1997, and retired in February 2009; he contends BPPR promised to credit prior years of service toward his BPPR pension.
- BPPR records and repeated written "Estimated Pension Calculation" reports (each labeled as estimates) reflected a 1980 start date and high pension estimates; BPPR later calculated final benefits based on only seven years of credited BPPR service, producing a much lower pension.
- Guerra sued under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) to recover benefits "due under the terms of the Plan," asserted ERISA equitable/promissory estoppel under § 502(a)(3), and brought Puerto Rico contract-law claims.
- The district court dismissed the § 502(a)(1) claim and the Puerto Rico contract claims (holding them preempted by ERISA), left estoppel for discovery, then granted summary judgment to defendants on estoppel because the Plan was unambiguous.
- On appeal the First Circuit affirmed: no recovery under § 502(a)(1) because the written Plan terms did not require crediting the prior service; state-law claims were preempted as they sought plan benefits; and equitable estoppel failed because the Plan terms were clear, so reliance on conflicting representations was unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ERISA § 502(a)(1) claim to recover benefits under the Plan | Guerra: fiduciaries’ representations and written estimates modified or obligated the Plan to credit his prior service so benefits are due under Plan terms | BPPR: Plan controls; oral promises cannot amend ERISA plans and the attached documents were only estimates, not plan amendments | Dismissed — Plaintiff cannot recover under § 502(a)(1) because none of the alleged representations plausibly amended the written Plan |
| Preemption of Puerto Rico contract claims | Guerra: breach of contract under local law based on same representations; seeks damages measured by pension shortfall | BPPR: state-law claims “relate to” an ERISA plan and require interpreting plan terms and benefit calculations, so ERISA preempts | Dismissed — state-law claims preempted as alternative means to obtain ERISA benefits |
| Equitable/promissory estoppel under ERISA § 502(a)(3) | Guerra: BPPR’s written estimates and employees’ representations induced him to retire early in reliance on higher pension estimates | BPPR: Estoppel cannot be used to alter clear plan terms; oral modifications are impermissible and reliance was unreasonable if plan unambiguous | Summary judgment for defendants — estoppel fails because Plan terms are unambiguous and reliance on contrary representations was unreasonable |
| Ambiguity of Plan terms (Years of Service / Years of Credit / Amendment power) | Guerra: Plan language leaves room for ambiguity (possible unspecified exceptions; amendment power makes terms unstable) | BPPR: Plan specifies covered affiliates and exceptions; expressio unius applies; amendment power does not render terms ambiguous | Held — Plan terms are unambiguous; express listing excludes other exceptions and the amendment clause does not create ambiguity |
Key Cases Cited
- Livick v. Gillette Co., 524 F.3d 24 (1st Cir.) (ERISA estoppel limited; plan modifications require written instrument)
- Law v. Ernst & Young, 956 F.2d 364 (1st Cir.) (oral modification of ERISA plan impermissible; estoppel limited to plan interpretation)
- Riley v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 744 F.3d 241 (1st Cir.) (expressio unius applied in ERISA plan interpretation)
- Hampers v. W.R. Grace & Co., 202 F.3d 44 (1st Cir.) (state-law claim "relates to" ERISA when it requires plan interpretation or benefit calculation)
- Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133 (U.S. Supreme Court) (ERISA preempts state laws that "relate to" employee benefit plans)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. Supreme Court) (summary judgment standard on genuine dispute of material fact)