Be part of the solution.

Help AARP Foundation win back opportunity for struggling Americans 50 and over.

Charity Rating

AARP Foundation earns high rating for accountability from a leading charity evaluator. Read

Connect with the


AARP Foundation Litigation:


Toll-free Nationwide:




Toll-free TTY:



AARP Foundation Tax ID


Schultz v. Aviall

Federal Court Does Not Answer Who Can Be Sued for Benefit Denials


The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit noted but did not answer the question whether an insurer, along with the plan, can be a defendant in a case for a denial of benefits.


Kathleen Schultz stopped working for Aviall Inc. due to her disability. Prudential, her employer-provided disability plan, eventually approved her long-term disability claim. However, Prudential informed Schultz that it would make deductions from her disability benefit for the Social Security payments received by her children as a result of her very same disability. Prudential relied on language in the disability benefit plan. Schultz filed a claim in court against Prudential and the Aviall Plan, alleging the deduction was improper.

Relying on Seventh Circuit precedent, the district court granted Prudential’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Aviall Plan, not Prudential, was the proper defendant under federal law. The court held that under the federal law that applies to employer-provided benefits, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), benefit denial claims can in most cases only be brought against the Plan itself. (The exception being when the Plan is not identified or is closely intertwined with the employer.) The court specifically rejected Schultz’s assertions that Prudential was a proper party because the claim involved all policies issued by the insurer where dependent benefits have been offset and Prudential has not contested its status in other similar actions.

AARP’s friend-of-the-court brief argued that the Seventh Circuit’s precedent should be reviewed and reversed because U.S. Supreme Court decisions have required a strict reading of ERISA’s civil enforcement provisions. Because the provision under which a participant sues for a denial of benefits does not specify who may be sued, the court should not read any limitation into that provision. In addition, the brief focused on demographic changes and industry trends since the Seventh Circuit’s initial decision on this issue in 1985. The brief pointed out that individuals are more likely to become disabled at some point during their working life, rather than die.

The appeals court ruled on the facts of this case without addressing the question raised by AARP, though it did note that this issue is an important one.

What’s at Stake
We will have to wait for another case in order to find out the 7th Circuit’s decision as to whether it will be willing to provide oversight of insurers who are not only paying out claims, but also making claims determinations. If individuals can more easily access their benefit rights, it will help them maintain a stream of income to protect their standard of living.

Case Status

Schultz v. Aviall was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

Topic Alerts

You can get weekly email alerts on the topics below. Just click “Follow.”

Manage Alerts


Please wait...

progress bar, please wait

Search Legal Advocacy

Legal Cases

Find the most recent cases in which AFL has advocated in courts nationwide for the rights of older persons, and filed AARP’s amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs that help courts decide precedent-setting cases.

Strengthening Law and Policy through
Legal Advocacy

Our legal advocacy initiatives  - conducted by AARP Foundation Litigation (AFL) - reflect more than 15 years of work in federal and state courts across the country. Through our efforts, we support the Foundation’s four priority areas: Hunger, Income, Housing and Isolation, and ensure that those 50 and older have a voice in the laws and policies that affect their daily lives.