:: Equitable Relief Claims Under ERISA Section 502(a)(3)
My article on this subject appears in the current issue of the Benefits Law Journal. An excerpt:
This article examines the development and application of ERISA Section 502(a)(3) in the context of claims between employee benefit plans and plan participants or beneficiaries. The proper application of this provision has proven yet another example of ERISA’s uneven development. A view of common fact patterns invoking ERISA Section 502(a)(3) provides at once an example of the lack of uniformity in its application as well as the most efficient explanation of its reach and limitations. In the first instance, ERISA Section 502(a)(3) will be evaluated in the context of plan claims against beneficiaries. These situations most frequently arise in the context of (1) plan reimbursement claims based upon subrogatton and reimbursement provisions and (2) plan claims of overpayment of benefits. Second, this article will evaluate cases on a reversal of the fact pattern; i.e., situations in which the plan beneficiaries advance claims against the plan or plan fiduciaries under ERISA Section 503(a)(3).
Presently, the scope of ERISA remedies under this statutory section is one of the issues which could appear before the U.S. Supreme Court. See, LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg, and Assoc., 06-856 (Cert. Petition Nov. 2006). (I think the more interesting issue in LaRue arises under ERISA Section 502(a)(2) but for technical reasons, the Court may not consider that issue.)
In my opinion, there is little reason to think the Supreme Court will take a different tack in its close, historical interpretation of the statute, but not knowing for sure is what makes watching the high court’s proceedings interesting. In any event, the Benefits Law Journal is a great resource and I will provide more details on the article in a subsequent post. For now, the link provided above will give sufficient access for those interested in the article. See also, :: ERISA Section 502(a)(3) “Make Whole†Remedy Issue Headed To Seventh Circuit
