lorenzen v. employees retirement plan of the sperry and hutchinson co.
896 F.2d 228 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under ERISA, a beneficiary is entitled only to the benefits specified in the plain language of the retirement plan documents. An employee's death before their scheduled retirement date precludes entitlement to retirement benefits, limiting the beneficiary to any specified pre-retirement death benefits, even under tragic or sympathetic circumstances.
Facts:
- Warren Lorenzen, an employee of S & H, was eligible to retire on February 1, 1987.
- At his employer's request, Lorenzen agreed to postpone his retirement until July 1, 1987.
- Lorenzen elected to receive his retirement benefits as a lump sum upon retirement, a choice to which his wife, Delvina Lorenzen, formally consented.
- The retirement plan required an employee to live to their retirement date to be eligible for any retirement benefit.
- On June 15, 1987, two weeks before his new retirement date, Lorenzen suffered a cardiac arrest and was hospitalized in grave condition.
- On June 27, 1987, after a second cardiac arrest, Lorenzen was placed on life-support machinery with a hopeless prognosis.
- Following medical advice, Delvina Lorenzen requested the machinery be disconnected, and Warren Lorenzen died that day, four days before his July 1 retirement date.
- It was assumed that had Lorenzen remained on life support, he would have survived past his retirement date, which would have entitled his estate to the full lump-sum benefit.
Procedural Posture:
- Delvina Lorenzen sued the Employees Retirement Plan of the Sperry and Hutchinson Company, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, a federal trial court.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Mrs. Lorenzen, awarding her the full lump-sum retirement benefit of approximately $192,000.
- The Employees Retirement Plan, as defendant-appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- Mrs. Lorenzen, as plaintiff-appellee, filed a cross-appeal seeking prejudgment interest, which the district court had denied.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employee's death before his scheduled retirement date, even if only by a few days while on life support, preclude his beneficiary from receiving the full lump-sum retirement benefit and instead limit her to the pre-retirement death benefit as specified in the plan documents?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, J.
Yes, an employee's death before the scheduled retirement date precludes the beneficiary from receiving the full retirement benefit, limiting her to the pre-retirement death benefit specified in the plan. The court found that the plan documents were clear and unambiguous: survival until the retirement date was a condition precedent to receiving retirement benefits. Mr. Lorenzen did not meet this condition. The court reasoned that while ERISA requires plan summaries to be clear, they are not required to anticipate every possible idiosyncratic contingency, such as being on life support just before retirement, as doing so would make the documents confusing. Mr. Lorenzen took an informed, calculated risk by postponing retirement for which he was compensated with continued salary. Furthermore, the court held that Mrs. Lorenzen was entitled to prejudgment interest on the smaller, undisputed pre-retirement death benefit, because the plan breached its fiduciary duty by conditioning its payment on her dropping her claim for the larger retirement benefit.
Concurring - Fairchild, S.C.J.
The court has jurisdiction to hear the case. The concurring opinion focused entirely on the procedural issue of whether the plan's appeal was timely. Judge Fairchild agreed with the majority's conclusion that the plan's counsel's mistake constituted 'excusable neglect,' allowing the late appeal. He characterized the federal rule that nullified the plan's initial, timely notice of appeal as a 'trap for the unwary' and viewed the district court's discretion to grant an extension as a necessary 'safety valve' for the rule's harsh effect.
Dissenting - Cudahy, J.
The court lacks jurisdiction to decide the merits of the case. The dissent argued that the plan's failure to file a timely second notice of appeal was not 'excusable neglect' because Seventh Circuit precedent had established a clear 'bright-line rule' that should have guided counsel. Because a timely appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, not a 'sanction,' the court should have dismissed the appeal. Though he would not reach the merits, Judge Cudahy criticized the majority's 'rational bookmaker's' analysis, arguing that Mr. Lorenzen postponed retirement as a favor to his employer, not as a gamble, and that applying cold economic logic to Mrs. Lorenzen's tragic life-support decision was inappropriate.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that ERISA plan administration is fundamentally a matter of contract law, where the plain language of the plan documents governs, even in the face of compelling equitable arguments. It establishes that ERISA's disclosure requirements prioritize clarity and general understanding over an exhaustive list of every specific, unlikely contingency. The case also provides an important clarification on fiduciary duties, holding that a plan cannot withhold payment of an undisputed benefit amount as leverage to force a beneficiary to abandon a good-faith claim for a larger, disputed amount. This ruling on prejudgment interest serves as a warning to plan administrators against using such coercive tactics.
Unlock the full brief for lorenzen v. employees retirement plan of the sperry and hutchinson co.