Case Name: Romero v. Allstate Ins. Co.

Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. Pa.    Docket: 2:01-cv-03894-RB

Read Summary

Case Issue: Did employer violate ERISA's prohibition against reducing pension benefits by phasing out early retirement benefits and changing the eligibility requirements for these benefits?

Case Name: Ruppert v. Principal Life Ins.

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 8th Cir.    Docket: 11-2554

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Results: The parties settled the case by resolving the individual claim through a payment to the individual plaintiff, and carving out the class issue in light of settlement. The Court of Appeals dismissed the class issue on jurisdictional grounds because the named plaintiff, having settled his claim, had no justiciable interest.

Case Name: Schultz v. Aviall

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 7th Cir.    Docket: 11-2889

Read Summary AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result:The court did not address whether an insurer could be sued as a defendant for a benefit denial but noted the issue in a footnote as an open question.

Case Name: Skinner v. Northrop Grumman Ret. Plan B.

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 9th Cir.    Docket: 10-55161

Read Summary and AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: Because participants did not rely on the SPD, but rather relied on the benefit calculations they were given, which were consistent with the underlying plan, ERISA was not violated.

Case Name: Tibble v. Edison International

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 9th Cir.    Docket: 10-56406, 10-56415

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Does a defined contribution 401(k) plan's use of retail class mutual fund shares raise a presumption of fiducairy imprudence?

Case Name:  U.S. Airways v. McCutchen

Court: U.S. Supreme Court    Docket: 11-1285

Read Summary AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Does ERISA authorize courts to use equitable principles to rewrite contractual language and refuse to order participants to reimburse their plan for benefits paid, where the participant was not made whole for his or her loss, the plan did not have to pay for any attorneys' fees, and the participant had to repay the plan out-of-pocket but the plan's terms give the plan an absolute right to full reimbursement?

Case Name: Winnett v. Caterpillar, Inc.

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 6th Cir.     Docket: 11-5905/11-5906

Case Result: The claims of retirees' surviving spouses for continued medical care without cost are barred by the applicable 6-year statute of limitations.

Case Name: Winnett v. Caterpillar, Inc.

Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. MD Tenn.    Docket: 3:06-cv-00235

Case Issue: Does employer have an enforceable obligation to continue to provide health insurance to retirees who retired from 1992-1998?

Case Name: Winnett v. Caterpillar, Inc.

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 6th Cir.    Docket: 09-6236

Read Summary

Case Result:  The statute of limitations barred the Caterpillar Logistics Systems subclass members'  claims as they became "clear and unequivocal" when new labor agreement altered healthcare benefits available to retirees and Caterpillar applied the new agreement to the retirees.