Jennifer Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, 806 F.3d 367

Background

This ERISA class action began with Durand's 2007 complaint challenging the Plan’s "whipsaw" lump-sum calculation (using a uniform 30‑year Treasury rate) as violating ERISA; the case was later remanded after an exhaustion ruling.
Defendants adopted a 2004 Amendment that replaced a participant-selected investment‑menu indexing for interest credits with a uniform 30‑year Treasury rate; defendants asserted the Amendment barred certain post‑2003 claims.
In 2009 Plaintiffs amended to add named plaintiffs Wharton and Tedesco and new "cutback" claims under ERISA § 204(g) alleging the 2004 Amendment unlawfully reduced pre‑2004 accrued benefits; they also reasserted some fiduciary‑duty allegations.
The magistrate judge dismissed the cutback claims and certain fiduciary claims as time‑barred and held the 2004 Amendment valid for lump‑sum distributions after 2003; Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the cutback and related fiduciary claims.
On appeal the Sixth Circuit applied Rule 15(c) relation‑back analysis and ERISA limitations rules, concluding the cutback claims did not relate back to the 2007 whipsaw complaint and that the fiduciary nondisclosure theories did not save the cutback claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2009 cutback claims relate back to the 2007 whipsaw complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B)	The cutback claims arise from the same general course of conduct and defendants had notice; thus relation back makes them timely	The amended claims challenge a distinct plan amendment and different operative facts; defendants lacked adequate notice	No relation back; cutback claims are time‑barred
Which statute of limitations governs the cutback claims	Plaintiffs conceded accrual was Jan 1, 2004 and argued relation back/tolling to avoid expiration	Defendants argued Kentucky’s five‑year statute (borrowed law) runs from accrual, making claims untimely	Court applied analogous Kentucky 5‑year period and found claims expired Jan 2009
Whether settlement communications or other notices satisfy Rule 15(c) notice requirement	Plaintiffs pointed to a January 2008 settlement letter to show defendants had notice of cutback theory	Defendants relied on plaintiffs’ earlier statement that the 2004 Amendment was outside the complaint and lack of clear notice	Court found no adequate notice in the cited communications and relied on plaintiffs’ prior disclaimers
Whether asserted fiduciary nondisclosures toll or revive the time‑barred cutback claims	Plaintiffs argued fiduciary nondisclosure of the IG report and the Amendment’s purpose prevented discovery of cutback claims and tolled limitations	Defendants argued nondisclosures concerned different conduct (whipsaw) and would not have alerted participants to cutback claims	Fiduciary nondisclosure theories did not save the cutback claims; alleged nondisclosures were unrelated to the cutback theory

Key Cases Cited

Durand v. Hanover Ins. Grp., Inc., 560 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2009) (excusing exhaustion where plaintiff challenges plan methodology)
West v. AK Steel Corp., 484 F.3d 395 (6th Cir. 2007) (explaining cash‑balance plans and whipsaw requirement)
Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.P.A., 560 U.S. 538 (2010) (Rule 15(c) relation‑back principles)
U.S. ex rel. Bledsoe v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 501 F.3d 493 (6th Cir. 2007) (notice standard for relation back)
Miller v. Am. Heavy Lift Shipping, 231 F.3d 242 (6th Cir. 2000) (relation‑back requires identity of general wrong and conduct)
Redmon v. Sud‑Chemie Inc. Ret. Plan for Union Emps., 547 F.3d 531 (6th Cir. 2008) (borrowing state statute of limitations for ERISA non‑fiduciary claims)
Tibble v. Edison Int’l, 135 S. Ct. 1823 (2015) (nature of fiduciary duty, including duty to inform, relevant to ERISA limitations analysis)
In re Vertrue Inc. Mktg. & Sales Litig., 719 F.3d 474 (6th Cir. 2013) (de novo review of statute‑of‑limitations dismissal)