55 F.4th 1059
6th Cir.2022Background
- Ralph Gragg worked 31 years (26 at Overnite, 5 at UPS); after a 2008 reclassification two UPS pension plans covered him.
- In June–July 2010 each plan sent materials and a July 12, 2010 letter describing the “Social Security Leveling Option,” showing a $1754 post‑65 reduction per plan (i.e., each plan would offset his Social Security by $1754).
- Gragg selected the leveling option and retired effective August 1, 2010.
- When Gragg turned 65 in July 2018 he began receiving $1754 in Social Security; each plan then reduced his plan benefit by $1754, producing a combined $3508 reduction and an overall monthly loss of $1754.
- Gragg disputed the reductions; the plans maintained they were correct. He sued in November 2020 under ERISA § 1132(a)(1)(B) to recover the alleged underpayments.
- The district court dismissed as time‑barred, reasoning Gragg’s claim accrued in July 2010; the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding accrual occurred when the underpayment was actually paid (Aug 1, 2018).
Issues
| Issue | Gragg's Argument | Plan's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does a §1132(a)(1)(B) claim to recover benefits accrue for statute‑of‑limitations purposes? | Accrual occurs when the plaintiff is first injured—i.e., when the Plan first underpaid him in Aug 2018. | Accrual occurred in July 2010 because the plans’ letters repudiated future benefits (or he could have sued then to clarify rights). | Claim accrues when the injury (the alleged underpayment) is or should be discovered; letters alone did not cause the injury, so accrual was Aug 1, 2018 and the claim is timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fallin v. Commonwealth Industries, Inc., 695 F.3d 512 (6th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for dismissal affirmed de novo)
- Patterson v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 845 F.3d 756 (6th Cir. 2017) (accrual under §1132(a)(1)(B) follows discovery rule)
- Morrison v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., 439 F.3d 295 (6th Cir. 2006) (repudiation framed as accrual in all‑or‑nothing denials)
- Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296 (1998) (claims based on contingent future events may be unripe)
- Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A., 140 S. Ct. 1615 (2020) (Article III limits apply to ERISA suits)