Margaret Lipker v. AK Steel Corporation
698 F.3d 923
6th Cir.2012Background
- Lipker, survivor of AK Steel employee, seeks surviving-spouse benefits under AK Steel Pension Agreement §4.3(d).
- Initial SSA notices suggested widow’s benefit amounts of $458 and later $1,469, creating confusion about the §4.3(d) calculation.
- AK Steel used the $1,469 figure (widow’s benefit under Social Security Act) in the §4.3(d) formula; Lipker used SSA’s $458/$1,011 offsets.
- District court favored Lipker’s interpretation and awarded benefits; on de novo review, court held AK Steel’s interpretation correct.
- Opinion reads §4.3(d) in light of Social Security Act provisions (42 U.S.C. §402); SPD language questioned for conflicts.
- Dissent argues CIGNA v. Amara requires remand for equitable relief under §1132(a)(3)
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of §4.3(d) in light of the Social Security Act | Lipker: use SSA labels as provided to beneficiaries | AK Steel: use §402(k)(3)(A) offset to define widow’s benefit | AK Steel interpretation preferred; widow’s benefit to plug in is $1,469 |
| Conflict between SPD and plan language | SPD controls if conflict exists | No conflict; SPD omits but aligns with plan terms | No conflict; SPD omissions do not override plan language |
| Role of SPD after CIGNA v. Amara | SPD may impose rights independent of plan terms | CIGNA precludes SPD as plan term; no §1132(a)(1)(B) relief | CIGNA precludes §1132(a)(1)(B) relief based on SPD; no remand here |
| Availability of equitable relief post-CIGNA | Equitable relief under §1132(a)(3) viable due to inaccurate summary language | No equitable relief unless pled; sectional limits apply | Dissent urged remand for equitable relief; majority did not remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Balmert v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 601 F.3d 497 (6th Cir.2010) (de novo review of plan interpretations)
- Farhner v. United Transp. Union Discipline Income Protection Program, 645 F.3d 338 (6th Cir.2011) (contract-law-like interpretation of plan terms)
- University Hospitals of Cleveland v. Emerson Elec. Co., 202 F.3d 839 (6th Cir.2000) (SPD vs. plan language conflict authority)
- Sprague v. General Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388 (6th Cir.1998) (analysis of SPD vs. plan terms limitations)
- Mitzel v. Anthem Life Ins. Co., 351 Fed.Appx. 74 (6th Cir.2009) (SPD omissions and plan-consistency guidance)
- CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 131 S. Ct. 1866 (2011) (SPD not enforceable as plan term; equitable relief possible)
- Sullivan v. CUNA Mut. Ins. Soc’y, 649 F.3d 553 (7th Cir.2011) (conflict between SPD and plan language; equitable relief context)
- Edwards v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 851 F.2d 134 (6th Cir.1988) (early conflict-resolution framework for SPDs)