Miles v. Corning Inc. Long Term Disability Plan, 948 F. Supp. 2d 295

Miles, a former Corning employee and participant in the Corning Long Term Disability Plan, sues the Plan and administrators under ERISA seeking review of denied benefits and declaratory/equitable relief.
Count III seeks surcharge under ERISA § 502(a)(3) for alleged breach of fiduciary duty arising from failure to provide a Plan summary.
Defendants move to dismiss Count III under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6) arguing lack of plausible harm and no actionable equitable remedy.
Court applies Twombly pleading standards and evaluates whether the Amended Complaint plausibly alleges actual harm from the lack of a Plan summary.
Court holds the alleged harm is too speculative and not sufficiently pleaded to support a surcharge claim; Count III is dismissed; remaining claims proceed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Amended Complaint plausibly alleges breach of fiduciary duty for failure to provide a plan summary	Miles alleges deprivation of summary harmed her decisions and rights.	No plausible harm; failure alone does not show actual injury.	Not plausibly alleged; claim dismissed
Whether surcharge under ERISA § 503(a)(3) requires actual harm from failure to provide summary information	Plaintiff seeks equitable relief for breach causing actual loss.	Harm must be proven and is not sufficiently pled.	Surcharge claim dismissed for lack of proven actual harm

CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 131 S. Ct. 1866 (2011) (equitable relief under ERISA and plan terms; not all relief available)
D’Iorio v. Winebow, Inc., 920 F. Supp. 2d 313 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (misrepresented plan terms; plausible surcharge where harm shown)
Osberg v. Foot Locker, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 2d 527 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (summary deprivation claims require concrete, non-speculative harm)
S & K Sales Co. v. Nike, Inc., 816 F.2d 843 (2d Cir. 1987) (actual loss must be reasonably proven)