Cigna Corp. v. Amara 131 S.ct. 1866 (2011)

8/19/2019 Cigna Corp. v. Amara 131 S.ct. 1866 (2011)

1/29

U.S. Supreme Court

·

131 S.Ct. 1866 (2011)

CIGNA CORP. V. AMARA, 0!80"(U.S. #!16!2011)

S$%re

S%&e

P'

SUMMARIS ROM SU*S+UN CASS (2#)

I. “Holding that "29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) . . . allows a court to loo outsid! th! lan#s

writt!n languag! in d!ciding what thos! t!r$s ar!% i.!.% what th! languag! $!ans%" and

citing U&U' i! Ins. Co. o *$. +. ,ard% -2 U.S. 3-/% 300309 (1999) as "!r$itting

th! insuranc! t!r$s o an IS*go+!rn!d lan to 4! int!rr!t!d in light o stat!

insuranc! rul!s"5Yafei Haung v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., Case No. 4:13CV00299 AGF !.". #o. $e% 1&, 2014'

II. “Holding that "th! su$$ar6 docu$!nts% i$ortant as th!6 ar!% ro+id! co$$unication

with 4!n!iciari!s a4out th! lan% 4ut 7 8 th!ir stat!$!nts do not th!$s!l+!s constitut! th!

t!r$s o th! lan or uros!s o 729 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1 )(B)8"5Ha((ison v. )NC Fin. $e(vs. G(%.,

Case No. 3:12*+v*14 $.". -io Aug 2&, 2014'

' SU''*IS

- PASSAGS ROM /IS CAS (0)

I. “:or th!s! r!asons ta!n tog!th!r w! conclud! that th! su$$ar6 docu$!nts% i$ortant as

th!6 ar!% ro+id! co$$unication with 4!n!iciari!s a4out th! lan% 4ut that th!ir

stat!$!nts do not th!$s!l+!s constitut! th! t!r$s o th! lan or uros!s o § -;2(a)(1)

(B).5 uo/e 41 /imes

https://casetext.com/case/yafei-haung-v-life-ins-co-of-n-amhttps://casetext.com/case/harrison-v-pnc-fin-servs-grp-1https://casetext.com/case/harrison-v-pnc-fin-servs-grp-1https://casetext.com/case/cigna-corp-v-amara-2?passage=993FcZxmoI-VTJSPNvm2Rghttps://casetext.com/case/cigna-corp-v-amara-2?passage=993FcZxmoI-VTJSPNvm2Rghttps://casetext.com/case/cigna-corp-v-amara-2?passage=993FcZxmoI-VTJSPNvm2Rghttps://casetext.com/case/cigna-corp-v-amara-2?passage=993FcZxmoI-VTJSPNvm2Rghttps://casetext.com/case/cigna-corp-v-amara-2?passage=993FcZxmoI-VTJSPNvm2Rghttps://casetext.com/case/cigna-corp-v-amara-2?passage=993FcZxmoI-VTJSPNvm2Rghttps://casetext.com/case/harrison-v-pnc-fin-servs-grp-1https://casetext.com/case/harrison-v-pnc-fin-servs-grp-1https://casetext.com/case/cigna-corp-v-amara-2?passage=993FcZxmoI-VTJSPNvm2Rghttps://casetext.com/case/cigna-corp-v-amara-2?passage=993FcZxmoI-VTJSPNvm2Rghttps://casetext.com/case/cigna-corp-v-amara-2?passage=993FcZxmoI-VTJSPNvm2Rghttps://casetext.com/case/yafei-haung-v-life-ins-co-of-n-am


2/29

II. “unctions r!?uir! th! lan ad$inistrator to a6 to alr!ad6

r!tir!d 4!n!iciari!s $on!6 ow!d th!$ und!r th! lan as r!or$!d. But th! act that this

r!li! ta!s th! or$ o a $on!6 a6$!nt do!s not r!$o+! it ro$ th! cat!gor6 o

traditionall6 !?uita4l! r!li!. ?uit6 courts oss!ss!d th! ow!r to ro+id! r!li! in th!

or$ o $on!tar6 "co$!nsation" or a loss r!sulting ro$ a trust!!#s 4r!ach o dut6% or

to r!+!nt th! trust!!#s un>ust !nrich$!nt. !stat!$!nt (


3/29

ID. “In th! r!s!nt cas!% it is not diicult to i$agin! how th! ailur! to ro+id! ro!r

su$$ar6 inor$ation% in +iolation o th! statut!% in>ur!d !$lo6!!s !+!n i th!6 did not

th!$s!l+!s act in r!lianc! on su$$ar6 docu$!nts E which th!6 $ight not th!$s!l+!s

ha+! s!!n E or th!6 $a6 ha+! thought !llow !$lo6!!s% or inor$al worlac!

discussion% would ha+! l!t th!$ now i% sa6% lan chang!s would li!l6 ro+! har$ul.

,! dou4t that Congr!ss would ha+! want!d to 4ar thos! !$lo6!!s ro$ r!li!.5 uo/e

/imes

D. “!g. § 1.A11(d)% F *1;% 3 :!d. !g. //2 (199/)@ and (4) IS* §§ 1;2(a) and

1;A(4)% which r!?uir! a lan ad$inistrator to ro+id! 4!n!iciari!s with su$$ar6 lan

d!scritions and with su$$ari!s o $at!rial $odiications% "writt!n in a $ann!r

calculat!d to 4! und!rstood 46 th! a+!rag! lan articiant%" that ar! "suici!ntl6

accurat! and co$r!h!nsi+! to r!asona4l6 aris! such articiants and 4!n!iciari!s oth!ir rights and o4ligations und!r th! lan%" 29 U.S.C. §§ 1;22(a)% 1;2A(4) (2;; !d. and

Su. III).5 uo/e /imes

DI. “


4/29

DI. “:irst% what th! =istrict Court did h!r! $a6 4! r!gard!d as th! r!or$ation o th! t!r$s

o th! lan% in ord!r to r!$!d6 th! als! or $isl!ading inor$ation CIG&*

ro+id!d.5 uo/e & /imes

DII. “


5/29

or$s o r!li! si$ilar to thos! that th! court !nt!r!d. § -;2(a)(3)% 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)

(3).5 uo/e 4 /imes

DDI. “


6/29

lan t!r$s indir!ctl6 in th! su$$ari!s% !+!n wh!n% as h!r!% th! ad$inistrator is also th!

lan sonsor.5 uo/e 3 /imes

DDDI. “,! agr!!d to d!cid! wh!th!r th! =istrict Court ali!d th! corr!ct l!gal standard%

na$!l6% a "li!l6 har$" standard% in d!t!r$ining that CIG&*#s notic! +iolations caus!d

its !$lo6!!s suici!nt in>ur6 to warrant l!gal r!li!. ust $!ntion!d

(IS*#s r!co+!r6o4!n!itsdu! ro+ision% § -;2(a)(1)(B)) authori!s !ntr6 o th!

r!li! th! =istrict Court ro+id!d.5 uo/e 3 /imes

DDD. “B 1


7/29

ollowing a trust!!#s 4r!ach o trust. In such instanc!s !?uit6 courts would "$old th!

r!li! to rot!ct th! rights o th! 4!n!iciar6 according to th! situation in+ol+!d."5 uo/e 3

/imes

DIII. “*lthough it is not alwa6s n!c!ssar6 to $!!t th! $or! rigorous standard i$licit in th!

words "d!tri$!ntal r!lianc!%" actual har$ $ust 4! shown.5 uo/e 3 /imes

DI. “


8/29


9/29

DIII. “&or can th! Court acc!t th! Solicitor G!n!ral#s alt!rnati+! rational! that th! =istrict

Court !norc!d th! su$$ar6 lan d!scritions and that th!6 ar! lan t!r$s.


10/29

DDI. “


11/29

Court that narrow!d th! alication o th! t!r$ "aroriat! !?uita4l! r!li!%" s!!% !.g.%

'!rt!ns% -;/ U. S. 2A/@ Gr!at,!st% -3A U. S. 2;A.5 uo/e 1 /ime

DDDII. “*nd gi+!n th! li!lihood that% on r!$and% th! =istrict Court will turn to and r!l6 uon

this alt!rnati+! su4s!ction% w! consid!r th! court#s s!cond conc!rn.5 uo/e 1 /ime

DDDIII. “,! ound that th! lainti sought "nothing oth!r than co$!nsator6 da$ag!s" against a

noniduciar6.5 uo/e 1 /ime

DDDI. “*nd w! h!ld that such a clai$% traditionall6 s!aing% was l!gal% not !?uita4l!% in

natur!.5 uo/e 1 /ime

DDD. “,ith th! !c!tion o th! r!li! now ro+id!d 46 § -;2(a)(1)(B)% !stat!$!nt (S!cond)

o uri!s id!ntii!d 46 IS* its!l.5 uo/e 1

/ime

DDDIII. “It cannot !+!n 4! !lain!d 46 an !ag!rn!ss to d!$onstrat! E 46 4latant dictu$% i

n!c!ssar6 E that% 46 G!org!% lan $!$4!rs $isl!d 46 an SK= will 4!

co$!nsat!d.5 uo/e 1 /ime

DDDID. “


12/29

st!$$ing ro$ r!lianc! on th! SK= or th! lost oortunit6 to cont!st or r!act to th!

switch.5 uo/e 1 /ime

' K*SS*GS

JUS


13/29

,! l!a+! it to th! =istrict Court to conduct that anal6sis in th! irst instanc!% 4ut w! id!nti6!?uita4l! rincil!s that th! court $ight al6 on r!$and.

I

1

B!caus! our d!cision r!sts in i$ortant art uon th! circu$stanc!s r!s!nt h!r!% w! shalld!scri4! thos! circu$stanc!s in so$! d!tail. ,! still si$li6 in doing so. But th! int!r!st!dr!ad!r can ind a $or! thorough d!scrition in two =istrict Court oinions% which s!t orth thatcourt#s indings r!ach!d at!r a l!ngth6 trial. S!! --9 :. Su. 2d 192 (Conn. 2;;/)@ -3A :. Su.2d 2// (Conn. 2;;/).

A

Und!r CIG&*#s r!199/ d!in!d4!n!it r!tir!$!nt lan% an !$lo6!! with at l!ast i+! 6!arss!r+ic! would r!c!i+! an annuit6 annuall6 a6ing an a$ount that d!!nd!d uon th! !$lo6!!#ssalar6 and l!ngth o s!r+ic!. =!!nding on wh!n th! !$lo6!! had >oin!d CIG&*% th! annuit6would !?ual !ith!r (1) 2 !rc!nt o th! !$lo6!!#s a+!rag! salar6 o+!r his inal thr!! 6!ars withCIG&*% $ultili!d 46 th! nu$4!r o 6!ars wor!d (u to 3;)@ or (2) 1 2O3 !rc!nt o th!!$lo6!!#s a+!rag! salar6 o+!r his inal i+! 6!ars with CIG&*% $ultili!d 46 th! nu$4!r o6!ars wor!d (u to 3-). Calculat!d !ith!r wa6% th! annuit6 would aroach ; !rc!nt o alongti$! !$lo6!!#s inal salar6. * w!llaid longti$! !$lo6!!% !arning% sa6% L1;%;;; !r6!ar% could r!c!i+! a r!tir!$!nt annuit6 a6ing th! !$lo6!! a4out L9%;;; !r 6!ar until hisd!ath.


14/29

+alu! o that !$lo6!!#s alr!ad6 !arn!d 4!n!its. *nd th! n!w lan s!t orth a $!thod orcalculating that initial contri4ution. oin!d CIG&* inJanuar6 1991 on his 2-th 4irthda6% and who (during th! i+! 6!ars r!c!ding th! lanchang!o+!r) !arn!d an a+!rag! salar6 o L1;;%;;; !r 6!ar. *s o Januar6 1% 199/% th! old lanwould ha+! !ntitl!d that !$lo6!! to an annuit6 !?ual to L1;;%;;; ti$!s 0 (6!ars th!n wor!d)ti$!s 1 2O3 !rc!nt% or L11%0 !r 6!ar E wh!n h! r!tir!d in 2;31 at ag! -. ust$!nt that w! shall d!scri4!infra% at 0) that is th! a$ount% $or! or l!ss%that th! n!w lan#s transition rul!s would ha+! r!?uir!d CIG&* initiall6 to d!osit.


15/29

In act% th! n!w lan sa+!d th! co$an6 L1; $illion annuall6 (though CIG&* lat!r said itd!+ot!d th! sa+ings to oth!r !$lo6!! 4!n!its). Its initial d!osit did not "r!r!s!nt th! ull+alu! o th! 4!n!it" that !$lo6!!s had "!arn!d or s!r+ic! 4!or! 199/."

1

*nd th! lan $ad! a signiicant nu$4!r o !$lo6!!s wors! o in at l!ast th! ollowing s!ciic

wa6s:irst% th! initial d!osit calculation ignor!d th! act that th! old lan o!r!d $an6 CIG&*!$lo6!!s th! right to r!tir! !arl6 (4!ginning at ag! --) with onl6 so$!what r!duc!d 4!n!its. ust!dCIG&*#s initial d!osit downward to account or th! act that% unli! th! old lan#s li!ti$!annuit6% an !$lo6!!#s sur+i+ors would r!c!i+! th! n!w lan#s 4!n!its (na$!l6% th! a$ount inth! !$lo6!!#s indi+idual account) !+!n i th! !$lo6!! di!d 4!or! r!tiring. ust$!nt consist!d o $ultil6ing th! oth!rwis!r!?uir!d d!osit 46 th! ro4a4ilit6 that th!!$lo6!! would li+! until r!tir!$!nt E a 9; !rc!nt ro4a4ilit6 in th! !a$l! o our 326!arold% supra% at A-. *nd that $!ant that CIG&*#s initial d!osit in our !a$l! E th! a$ount thatwas suos!d to grow to L12;%-;; 46 2;31 E would 4! l!ss than L22%;;;% not L2A%;;; (th!nu$4!r w! co$ut!d).


16/29

argon as "w!ar awa6%" s!! -3A :. Su. 2d% at 3;33;A (r!!rringto r!sond!nts# r!?uiring to 1; 6!ars to catch u).

1


17/29

ur6.ath!r% it ound (1) that th! !+id!nc! r!s!nt!d had rais!d a r!su$tion o "li!l6 har$"su!r!d 46 th! $!$4!rs o th! r!l!+ant !$lo6!! class% and (2) that CIG&*% though r!! to

o!r contrar6 !+id!nc! in r!s!ct to so$! or all o thos! !$lo6!!s% had ail!d to r!4ut that r!su$tion. It conclud!d that this unr!4utt!d showing was suici!nt to warrant classalica4l!r!li!.

1

S!cond% th! court not!d that § 2;A(h) had 4!!n int!rr!t!d 46 th! S!cond Circuit to !r$it th!in+alidation o lan a$!nd$!nts not r!c!d!d 46 a ro!r notic!% rior to th! 2;;1 a$!nd$!ntthat $ad! this ow!r !licit. --9 :. Su. 2d% at 2;0 (citing Frommert +. Conkright % A33 :. 3d2-A% 23 (2;;))@ s!! 29 U.S.C. § 1;-A(h)() (2;; !d.) (!ntitling articiants to 4!n!its"without r!gard to 7th!8 a$!nd$!nt" in cas! o an "!gr!gious ailur!"). But th! court alsothought that granting this r!li! h!r! would har$% not h!l% th! in>ur!d !$lo6!!s.


18/29

1

udg$!nt o th! district court or su4stantiall6 th! r!asons stat!d " inth! =istrict Court#s " w!llr!ason!d and scholarl6 oinions. " 3A/ :!d. *. 20(2;;9).


19/29

2

St! 1 It ord!r!d th! t!r$s o th! lan r!or$!d (so that th!6 ro+id!d an " * lus B% " rath!r thana " gr!at!r o * or B " guarant!!). St! 2 It ord!r!d th! lan ad$inistrator (which it ound to 4!CIG&*) to !norc! th! lan as r!or$!d. 1

n! can airl6 d!scri4! st! 2 as consist!nt with § -;2(a)(1)(B)% or that ro+ision grants a

articiant th! right to 4ring a ci+il action to " r!co+!r 4!n!its du! . . . und!r th! t!r$s o his lan. " 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B).1

*nd st! 2 ord!rs r!co+!r6 o th! 4!n!its ro+id!d 46 th! " t!r$s o 7th!8 lan " as reformed.But what a4out st! 1M

1

,h!r! do!s § -;2(a)(1)(B) grant a court th! ow!r to changeth! t!r$s o th! lan as th!6 r!+iousl6 !ist!dM 3


20/29

1

&or do w! ind it !as6 to s?uar! th! Solicitor G!n!ral#s r!ading with th! statut!#s di+ision oauthorit6 4!tw!!n a lan#s sonsor and th! lan#s ad$inistrator. 2

!cti+! cl!ar% si$l! co$$unication. S!! §§ 2(a)% 1;2(a)% 29 U.S.C.§ 1;;1(a)% 1;22(a) (2;; !d.).


21/29

I § -;2(a)(1)(B) do!s not authori! !ntr6 o th! r!li! h!r! at issu!% what a4out n!ar46 § -;2(a)(3)M

1


22/29

1

,ith th! !c!tion o th! r!li! now ro+id!d 46 § -;2(a)(1)(B)% !stat!$!nt (S!cond) o unctions% $anda$us% and r!stitution as !?uita4l!r!li!).2

*nd oth!r r!li! ord!r!d 46 th! =istrict Court r!s!$4l!s or$s o traditional !?uita4l! r!li!. 2


23/29


24/29

S!ction -;2(a)(3) in+o!s th! !?uita4l! ow!rs o th! =istrict Court.

#

,! cannot now with c!rtaint6 which r!$!d6 th! =istrict Court und!rstood its!l to 4!i$osing% nor wh!th!r th! =istrict Court will ind it aroriat! to !!rcis! its discr!tion und!r §-;2(a)(3) to i$os! that r!$!d6 on r!$and. ,! n!!d not d!cid! which r!$!di!s ar! aroriat!

on th! acts o this cas! in ord!r to r!sol+! th! arti!s# disut! as to th! aroriat! l!gal standardin d!t!r$ining wh!th!r $!$4!rs o th! r!l!+ant !$lo6!! class w!r! in>ur!d.

"


25/29

#

ust as a court o !?uit6 would not surcharg! a trust!! or a non!ist!nt har$% A Scott*sch!r § 2A.9% a iduciar6 can 4! surcharg!d und!r § -;2(a)(3) onl6 uon a showing o actualhar$ E ro+!d (und!r th! d!ault rul! or ci+il cas!s) 46 a r!ond!ranc! o th! !+id!nc!. 6

ur!d !$lo6!!s !+!n i th!6 did not th!$s!l+!s act inr!lianc! on su$$ar6 docu$!nts E which th!6 $ight not th!$s!l+!s ha+! s!!n E or th!6 $a6ha+! thought !llow !$lo6!!s% or inor$al worlac! discussion% would ha+! l!t th!$ now i%sa6% lan chang!s would li!l6 ro+! har$ul. ,! dou4t that Congr!ss would ha+! want!d to 4ar thos! !$lo6!!s ro$ r!li!.


26/29

JUS


27/29

this cas! r!s!nts no !c!tional r!ason to do so.


28/29

4! wors! o. !sond!nts $ight (and li!l6 should) ha+! argu!d that th! notic! or th! r!!!was its!l +oid% 4ut th!6 "argu!d non! o th!s! things%" and th! =istrict Court d!clin!d to "$a!th!s! argu$!nts now on 7th!ir8 4!hal." --9 :. Su. 2d 192% 2;/ (Conn. 2;;/).

ath!r than att!$ting to r!ad th! =istrict Judg!#s al$% I would si$l6 r!$and. I th! =istrictCourt dis$iss!s th! cas! 4as!d on an incorr!ct r!ading o ertens% th! S!cond Circuit cancorr!ct its !rror% and i th! S!cond Circuit do!s not do so this Court can grant c!rtiorari.

1


29/29

on th! SK= or th! lost oortunit6 to cont!st or r!act to th! switch. C. 3 *. Scott ,. :ratch!r%aw o

Cigna Corp. v. Amara 131 S.ct. 1866 (2011)

Documents