Roger Smith v. Aegon Companies Pension Plan
769 F.3d 922
6th Cir.2014Background
- Roger Smith, a former Commonwealth General employee, retired in 2000 and received monthly pension payments that included VERRP (enhanced) benefits after CGC merged into AEGON.
- In 2007 AEGON amended its pension plan to add a venue-selection clause requiring all plan-related suits be brought in federal court in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
- In 2011 the Plan notified Smith it had overpaid him and reduced/terminated his monthly payments, seeking to recoup roughly $153,283; Smith exhausted administrative appeals and sued in the Western District of Kentucky.
- The district court dismissed Smith’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for improper venue based on the Plan’s venue clause; Smith appealed.
- The Sixth Circuit majority affirmed, holding the venue clause enforceable and applicable to Smith’s 2011 claims; Judge Clay dissented, arguing the clause conflicted with ERISA’s policy of ready access to federal courts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of Plan venue-selection clause | Clause is inconsistent with ERISA’s purpose and venue provision; should be unenforceable as contrary to public policy | Clause is a valid plan amendment; presumptively enforceable under contractual-forum-selection principles | Enforceable; plaintiff bears burden to show unreasonableness and did not do so |
| Deference to DOL/Secretary of Labor amicus position that venue clauses conflict with ERISA | Secretary’s interpretation of ERISA entitled to Chevron or Skidmore deference | DOL amicus brief lacks force of law and is unpersuasive | No Chevron or Skidmore deference; court declines to adopt Secretary’s position |
| Applicability of 2007 amendment to Smith’s claims | Smith: his claims accrued in 2000 so the 2007 amendment shouldn’t apply | A cause of action accrued in 2011 when Plan clearly repudiated benefits by reducing payments | Claims arose in 2011 (clear repudiation rule); 2007 amendment applies |
| Remedy for enforcement of forum-selection clause | Dismissal was improper; case should have been transferred under §1404(a) per Atlantic Marine | District court properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) based on venue clause; plaintiff never moved to transfer | No abuse of discretion; dismissal affirmed because Smith never sought transfer before district court |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (Chevron deference framework for agency statutory interpretation)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (limits on Chevron where agency action lacks force of law)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (weight of agency positions expressed informally depends on persuasiveness)
- M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (presumption in favor of enforcing forum-selection clauses unless unreasonable)
- Wong v. PartyGaming Ltd., 589 F.3d 821 (6th Cir. standard; party opposing clause must show unenforceability)
- Simon v. Pfizer Inc., 398 F.3d 765 (6th Cir. upholding arbitration in ERISA plan context)