Schulist v. Blue Cross of Iowa

8 Citing cases

  1. O'Malley v. C.I.R

    972 F.2d 150 (7th Cir. 1992)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Id. at 110. Because O'Malley did not participate in the approval, he did not breach his fiduciary duty under § 406. See Schulist v. Blue Cross of Iowa, 553 F. Supp. 248, 254 (N.D.Ill. 1982), aff'd 717 F.2d 1127 (7th Cir. 1983) (explaining that § 406 is "inapposite" when fiduciary has not caused the Plan to engage in a prohibited transaction). The insurance companies covered the loss caused by the breach of fiduciary duty by the six trustees who authorized the payment of O'Malley's fees.

  2. Saramar Aluminum v. Pension Plan for Employees

    782 F.2d 577 (6th Cir. 1986)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that a plan has standing because it necessarily includes those fiduciaries who administer and effectuate its policies

    Under the circumstances, we consider that the Plan as a party, then, comes under the ERISA definition of a "fiduciary," despite the fact that the Plan has entered into a separate agreement with an Ohio bank as trustee to provide for the holding of funds and for making distributions as directed by the Board of Administrators. See Monson v. Century Mfg. Co., 739 F.2d 1293, 1303 (8th Cir. 1984); Schulist v. Blue Cross of Iowa, 717 F.2d 1127, 1131 (7th Cir. 1983), aff'g, 553 F. Supp. 248 (N.D.Ill. 1982); Leigh v. Engle, 727 F.2d 113, 133 (7th Cir. 1984); U.S. Steel Corp. v. Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission, 669 F.2d 124, 127 (3d Cir. 1982). We conclude that the Plan has filed suit as a fiduciary, as it had the authority to do, in its counterclaim against Saramar. There was jurisdiction under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132, for the district court to entertain this controversy as if the action had originally been filed in that court.

  3. Schulist v. Blue Cross of Iowa

    717 F.2d 1127 (7th Cir. 1983)   Cited 55 times
    Holding service provider was not fiduciary where its compensation was established through successive negotiations

    The plaintiffs, trustees of the Pattern Makers' Health and Welfare Trust ("Trustees," "Trust"), sued Blue Cross of Iowa and Blue Shield of Iowa ("BC" and "BS") alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., and fraud. The district court, 553 F. Supp. 248, granted defendants' motions for summary judgment as to the contract and ERISA claims and remanded the pendent state law fraud claim to Iowa state court following dismissal of the federal claims. The Trust has appealed the summary judgment as to the contract and ERISA claims.

  4. Tyrakowski v. Conagra Brands Inc.

    23 CV 894 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 18, 2024)

    . See also Schulist v. Blue Cross of Iowa, 553 F.Supp. 248, 254-55 (N.D. Ill. 1982), aff'd 717 F.2d 1127 (7th Cir. 1983) (“The silence of the contract with regard to any premium surplus does not constitute an ambiguity, but rather, indicates that the parties agreed to no refunds.”).

  5. Dirkes v. Hartford Life Group Insurance Company

    Case No. 1:05cv254 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 15, 2008)   Cited 2 times

    Ruble v. UNUM Life Ins. Co., 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17931, 9-10 (W.D. Mich. May 17, 1989). See, e.g., Benvenuto v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., 643 F. Supp. 87, 90 (D.N.J. 1986); McLaughlin v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 565 F. Supp. 434, 441 (N.D. Cal. 1983); Schulist v. Blue Cross of Iowa, 553 F. Supp. 248, 252 (N.D. Ill. 1982), [*10] aff'd, 717 F.2d 1127 (7th Cir. 1983); Eversole v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 500 F. Supp. 1162, 1165 (C.D. Cal. 1980). Here, the insurance company has discretionary responsibility related to claims and is, therefore, the fiduciary.

  6. Benvenuto v. Connecticut General Life Ins.

    643 F. Supp. 87 (D.N.J. 1986)   Cited 14 times

    Section 1002 is clear in stating that an entity is a fiduciary to the extent that it does exercise such authority. See also Schulist v. Blue Cross of Iowa, 553 F. Supp. 248 (N.D.Ill. 1982), aff'd, 717 F.2d 1127 and 1131 (7th Cir. 1983). The record indicates that Connecticut General did determine whether to pay plaintiff's claim and in fact issued the check that covered some of plaintiff's claims.

  7. Dhayer v. Weirton Steel Div. of Nat. Steel Corp.

    571 F. Supp. 316 (N.D.W. Va. 1983)   Cited 24 times
    In Dhayer v. Weirton Steel Division of National Steel Corp., 571 F. Supp. 316, 330 (N.D.W. Va. 1983), the district court held that nonunion salaried employees were not entitled to severance pay benefits solely on the basis of a transfer of ownership because "the fundamental bases for this benefit [were] not necessarily put into play by such a transfer of ownership; namely, the permanent abolishment of positions or reductions in the salaried work force."

    Therefore, a violation of § 1104 fiduciary standards must be based on a showing of bad faith or some other indicia of arbitrary and capricious action. Id. and Schulist v. Blue Cross of Iowa, 553 F. Supp. 248 (N.D.Ill., 1982). The Court's earlier finding that the proposed amendments to the pension plan, inherent in the terms of sale, do not violate ERISA's vesting and non-forfeitability provisions precludes any contention that a fiduciary duty was breached on the basis that some pension "obligation" will be limited or forfeited if the terms of sale are approved.

  8. Sutton v. Weirton Steel Div. of Nat. Steel Corp.

    567 F. Supp. 1184 (N.D.W. Va. 1983)   Cited 37 times
    In Sutton and Dhayer, plaintiffs included both union and non-union employees of National Steel's Weirton Steel Division.

    Therefore, a violation of § 1104 fiduciary standards must be based on a showing of bad faith or some other indicia of arbitrary and capricious action. Id. and Schulist v. Blue Cross of Iowa, 553 F. Supp. 248 (N.D.Ill. 1982). The Court's earlier finding that the proposed amendments to the pension agreement, inherent in the terms of sale, do not violate ERISA's vesting and non-forfeitability provisions precludes any contention that a fiduciary duty was breached on the basis that some pension "obligation" will be limited or forfeited if the terms of sale are approved.