Estate of Schwing v. The Lilly Health Plan, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 7871 (3d Cir. April 14, 2009)

Prior to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 138 S.Ct. 2343 (2008), the Third Circuit held that courts deciding an ERISA plan participant’s appeal from the plan administrator’s denial of benefits should apply a “sliding scale” standard of review, in which the level of deference accorded the administrator’s decision would change depending on the presence of conflicts of interest affecting plan administration. In Schwing, the Third Circuit recognized that, in light of Glenn, this “sliding scale” approach is no longer valid. Instead, the Court announced a new standard of review, whereby courts should apply a deferential abuse of discretion standard of review across the board and consider any conflict of interest as one of several factors in considering whether the plan administrator abused its discretion.

McCauley v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., 551 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2008)

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that its existing standard of review for ERISA disputes has been abrogated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 128 S. Ct. 2343 (2008), and has announced a new standard for judicial review of such disputes. While the previous standard of review provided for de novo judicial review of an ERISA administrator's decision when it is shown that a conflict of interest actually influenced that decision, the new standard merely provides that such a conflict of interest is to be “weighed as a factor” in determining whether there was an abuse of discretion.

Pell v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. Inc., 539 F.3d 292 (3d Cir. 2008)

In Pell v. E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co. Inc., the Third Circuit held that an ERISA fiduciary who made repeated misrepresentations to an employee regarding the terms and conditions of his or her ERISA plan may be held liable for equitable relief.

LaRue v. DeWolff, Boburg & Assocs., Inc., 552 U.S.___; 128 S. Ct. 1020 (Feb. 20, 2008).

An ERISA plan participant, the value of whose personal account was impaired due to acts or omissions of the plan administrator, may bring a claim under ERISA, § 502(a)(2), for breach of fiduciary duty and recover damages.

Edgar v. Avaya Inc., 503 F.3d 340 (3d. Cir., September 26, 2007).

A fiduciary who invests the funds of an employee in the employer’s stock, but is neither required nor simply permitted to do so, establishes a rebuttable presumption that he/she acted consistently with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”).  In Edgar, the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit reviewed the acts of a fiduciary of an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“ESOP”), and ruled that, under a standard of review atypically applied in trusts, the fiduciary did not violate ERISA.

Edgar v. Avaya Inc., 503 F.3d 340 (3d. Cir., September 26, 2007).

A fiduciary who invests the funds of an employee in the employer’s stock, but is neither required nor simply permitted to do so, establishes a rebuttable presumption that he/she acted consistently with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”).  In Edgar, the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit reviewed the acts of a fiduciary of an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“ESOP”), and ruled that, under a standard of review atypically applied in trusts, the fiduciary did not violate ERISA.