Laskin v. Siegel
57 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2141
7th Cir.2013Background
- Sharon Laskin accrued a fully vested pension balance while employed by Jefco (left in 1974); after separation the account accrued interest at a lower “passbook” rate.
- Jefco sent Laskin a 1976 letter notifying her of the passbook rate and a 1975 amendment raising retirement eligibility age from 55 to 65; periodic account statements continued through at least 1988.
- Jefco’s profit-sharing/pension plan was dissolved on December 31, 1991; the plan’s assets were later disbursed and some beneficiaries (including Laskin) received no payout because they could not be located.
- Laskin first learned she had not been paid in September 2008 after contacting Jeffrey Siegel; she filed suit in 2009 alleging ERISA breach of fiduciary duty and later amended to add additional defendants and plaintiff Isaacson.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing ERISA’s statute of limitations (29 U.S.C. § 1113) bars the suit; district court granted summary judgment for defendants as time-barred and denied defendants’ fee motion with prejudice; plaintiffs appealed and defendants cross-appealed the fee ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff's ERISA fiduciary-duty claims are time-barred under 29 U.S.C. § 1113 | Laskin: Tolling for fraud/concealment applies; she did not discover the breach until Sept 2008, so suit is timely under the 6-year discovery rule | Defendants: Last actionable event was the 1991 plan termination; § 1113’s earlier cutoff (1997) bars suit | Held: Claims are time-barred; the statute expired in 1997 and plaintiff failed to show fraud or concealment to toll the period |
| Whether defendants fraudulently concealed the breach to toll the limitations period | Laskin: Philip Siegel concealed the plan dissolution and failed to provide required plan disclosures, delaying discovery | Defendants: No evidence of affirmative concealment or misrepresentations that hid the violation; Laskin received notices and account statements | Held: No fraud or concealment shown; plaintiff failed to present evidence of affirmative acts to hide the violation |
| Whether any asserted misrepresentations (e.g., eligibility age change) constituted concealment/fraud | Laskin: Prior communications and omissions misled her about rights | Defendants: Changes were disclosed (1976 letter), statements were issued; no trick or contrivance to hide the violation | Held: Disclosures were made; statutory tolling for fraud not established |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees/costs | Defendants: Entitled to fees under ERISA presumption and Rule 54(d) | Plaintiffs: Suit was justified though untimely | Held: No abuse of discretion; district court reasonably denied fees given its finding that plaintiff’s claim was justified but untimely and defendants’ fee motion was poorly supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Wis. Cent., Ltd. v. Shannon, 539 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2008) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment and construing facts for non-moving party)
- Radiology Ctr., S.C. v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., 919 F.2d 1216 (7th Cir. 1990) (fraud/concealment under ERISA requires affirmative acts delaying discovery)
- Martin v. Consultants & Administrators, Inc., 966 F.2d 1078 (7th Cir. 1992) (discusses tolling of ERISA statute of limitations for fraud and definitions of self-concealing violations)
- Holmstrom v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 615 F.3d 758 (7th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review for fee awards)
- Herman v. Central States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund, 423 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2005) (discusses presumptions relating to fee awards in ERISA cases)