To remedy these alleged violations, Plaintiff seeks, via ERISA § 102 and 29 C.F.R § 2520.102-2, full reimbursement and equitable relief. Defendant cites to Engers v. AT&T, 428 F. Supp. 2d 213, 234 (D.N.J. 2006) as support for the proposition that ERISA § 102 does not provide a cause of action for its violation. Plaintiff argues that the court in Engers did not foreclose recovery for furnishing a misleading SPD, but rather addressed whether the proper avenue for such recovery was through ERISA § 102 or ERISA § 502, the general ERISA enforcement mechanism.
Similarly, the Third Circuit has noted that true breach of fiduciary duty claims may not be subject to the exhaustion requirement. See D'Amico, 297 F. 3d at 291 ("More recently, we have also recognized the possibility of waiving exhaustion in cases where statutory rights stem from the fiduciary duties set forth in section 404 of ERISA"); see also Engers v. AT&T, 428 F. Supp. 2d 213, 230 (D.N.J. 2006) ("The rationale behind this exception is that a claim involving a breach of fiduciary duty involves no administrative expertise and thus exhaustion serves no real purpose." (citation omitted)).
Likewise, "[t]rue fiduciary duty claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(2) do not require administrative exhaustion under ERISA." Shadow v. Cont'l Airlines, Inc., 2006 WL 3691037, at *7 (W.D. Tex. 2006) (citing Milofsky v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 442 F.3d 311, 313 (5th Cir. 2006) (en banc)); see also Engers v. AT T, 428 F. Supp. 2d 213, 230 (D.N.J. 2006) ("The rationale behind this exception is that a claim involving a breach of fiduciary duty involves no administrative expertise and thus exhaustion serves no real purpose." (citing Zipf, 799 F.2d at 892-93)).
Summary judgment on the Fourth and Fifth Claims AT T moves for summary judgment on the Fourth and Fifth Claims in the Fourth Amended Complaint. Although these claims assert violation of ERISA sections 402, pertaining to the written instrument requirement, and 404, pertaining to fiduciary duties, this Court has construed them as claims for benefits under the Plan. Engers v. AT T, 428 F. Supp. 2d 213, 226 (D.N.J. 2006) ("Plaintiffs' Fourth and Fifth Claims actually arise under § 502(a)(1)(B).") This recasts these claims as claims for benefits that have been denied by the Plan, with the Court serving to review the decision by the AT T Employee Benefits Committee ("Committee") to deny benefits. Defendants contend that the Committee's decision should be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, pursuant toFirestone Tire Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115 (1989), because the Plan gave the Committee the discretionary authority determine eligibility and interpret Plan provisions. Defendants argue that the Committee did not abuse its discretion in denying benefits.
” Engers v. AT&T, 428 F.Supp.2d 213, 235 (D.N.J. 2006) (citing Varity Corp., 516 U.S. at 515). A. 502(a)(1)(B) Claim
Count Five Must Be Dismissed Because It Is Not A Recognized Cause Of Action.ERISA § 102 does not provide a cause of action for a party's failure to establish a Summary Plan Description. 29 U.S.C. § 1022; Engers v. AT&T, 428 F. Supp. 2d 213, 234 (D.N.J. 2006). Nevertheless, Plaintiff demands monetary relief for Defendant's alleged failure to establish a Summary Plan Description under ERISA § 102.
Menendez v. United Food CommercialWorkers Local 450T, AFL-CIO, 2005 WL 1925787, *1-2 (D.N.J. 2005)." Engers v. AT T, 428 F.Supp.2d 213, 229 (D.N.J. 2006). A court must weigh several factors when making its determination as to whether a plaintiff is entitled to the above "futility" exception, "including (1) whether plaintiff diligently pursued administrative relief; (2) whether plaintiff acted reasonably in seeking immediate review under the circumstances; (3) existence of a fixed policy denying benefits; (4) failure of the . . . company to comply with its own internal administrative procedures; and (5) testimony of plan administrators that any administrative appeal was futile."
Id. at 468 (quoting Eddy v. V.I. Water Power Auth., 256 F.3d 204, 209-10 (3d Cir. 2001)). See also Engers v. AT T, 428 F.Supp.2d 213, 227 (D.N.J. 2006) (exhaustion defense not waived, though raised for the first time at summary judgment, where plaintiff suffered no prejudice and public policy was best served by applying the requirement). While it is true that the Plan failed to plead exhaustion as a defense, nothing in the record suggests that the delay in raising this issue until the summary judgment stage was for tactical or other improper reasons.
For example, in Wilkins v. Mason Tenders Dist. Council Pension Fund, 445 F.3d 572, 583 (2d Cir. 2006), the Second Circuit held that the plaintiff's § 102 claim was akin to a claim for benefits, and was cognizable under § 502(a)(1)(B). See also, Rothwell v. ChenangoCounty N.Y.S.A.R.C. Pension Plan, 2005 WL 2276023, at *4-5 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2005) (dismissing plaintiff's claims for equitable relief under § 502(a)(3) as duplicative of her § 502(a)(1)(B) claim where all claims were based on defendant's alleged violation of ERISA § 102); Engers v. AT T, 428 F.Supp.2d 213, 236 (D. N.J. 2006) (holding that plaintiffs could not "sustain a claim under § 502(a)(3) for an alleged breach of fiduciary duty based upon a violation of § 102 or other ERISA section relating to SPD's" because plaintiffs had "the ability to proceed under § 502(a)(1)(B) for Defendants' alleged violation of § 102"); In re Managed Care Litigation, 185 F.Supp.2d 1310, 1326, 1329-31 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (holding that plaintiffs could not assert claims under § 502(a)(3) based on alleged violation of § 102 because plaintiffs had an adequate remedy under either § 502(c) or § 502(a)(1)(B)).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached its fiduciary duty by disseminating an allegedly misleading SPD. A successful claim of breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA for misrepresentation must demonstrate that: (1) the defendant company was acting as a fiduciary; (2) the defendant made affirmative misrepresentations or failed to adequately inform plan beneficiaries; (3) the information misrepresented or not disclosed was material; and (4) the plaintiff relied on the misrepresentation to its detriment. Engers v. Am. Tel. Tel. Co., 428 F.Supp. 2d 213, 239 (D.N.J. 2006). An affirmative misrepresentation is established if the SPD and the Plan conflict.