CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Consolidated Welfare Fund

Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield (Empire) sued the Consolidated Welfare Fund and other defendants for breach of contract, fraud, and RICO violations. The defendants moved for partial judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the state law claims were preempted by ERISA. The court analyzed whether the Fund qualified as an 'employee welfare benefit plan' (EWBP) under ERISA. Finding that the Fund, with its 'associate members' from diverse backgrounds and commercial solicitation, did not meet the criteria of an EWBP, the court concluded that ERISA preemption did not apply. Therefore, the defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings was denied, allowing Empire's state law claims to proceed.

ERISA PreemptionEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanHealth Insurance FraudLabor Union MembershipAssociate MembersRule 12(c) MotionFederal Civil ProcedureStatutory InterpretationCommercial Insurance SchemesDistrict Court Ruling
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romney v. Lin

This opinion addresses an action to collect unpaid contributions owed by Goodee Fashions, Inc. to four union benefit funds, totaling $70,647.17. After an initial judgment against Goodee Fashions proved uncollectible, the plaintiff, representing the union benefit funds, sued Alan Lin, a principal shareholder, under New York Bus. Corp. Law § 630. This state law holds the ten largest shareholders jointly and severally liable for debts to employees, including benefit funds. Defendant removed the case to federal court, arguing preemption by ERISA and LMRA. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, ruling that N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 630 is preempted by ERISA. Consequently, the claim for $70,647.17 was dismissed, except for a $598.27 portion related to the Sportswear Industry Trust Fund, which was deemed not an ERISA fund.

ERISA PreemptionLMRAShareholder LiabilityUnpaid ContributionsEmployee Benefit PlansCollective BargainingState Law PreemptionFederal JurisdictionCorporate DebtDismissal
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2010

In re Marsh Erisa Litigation

Named Plaintiffs Donald Hundley, Conrad Simon, and Leticia Hernandez brought a class action lawsuit against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA related to imprudent investments in MMC stock within the company's 401(k) plan. The litigation, complex in scope and involving extensive discovery, ultimately led to a $35 million class action settlement after arm's-length negotiations facilitated by a mediator. The Court approved the settlement, certified the class for settlement purposes, and sanctioned the plan of allocation. Additionally, the decision granted substantial attorneys' fees and expenses to lead counsel, alongside case contribution awards for the named plaintiffs, while rejecting the two objections received. This ruling concludes a significant ERISA litigation, emphasizing the protection of retirement savings for American workers.

ERISAClass ActionSettlement ApprovalFiduciary Duty401(k) PlanStock InvestmentAttorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesClass CertificationPlan of Allocation
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Associates, P.C.

Nancy Kosakow sued her former employer, New Rochelle Radiology Associates, alleging FMLA violations and wrongful denial of severance pay under ERISA. The court previously found FMLA claims collaterally estopped but remanded the ERISA claim to the Plan Administrator for a determination on severance eligibility. The Administrator denied severance, finding Kosakow not "terminated" and, even if so, not entitled to severance. This court reversed the "not terminated" finding, stating Kosakow was terminated due to a reduction in force. However, the court affirmed the Administrator's denial of severance, concluding that the "where applicable" clause in the Plan gave the Administrator broad discretion and that Kosakow's circumstances did not warrant severance. The court found that the denial was not unreasonable, even when considering a severance payment made to another full-time employee under different circumstances.

ERISASeverance PayFMLATerminationSummary JudgmentDe Novo ReviewPlan Administrator DiscretionEmployee BenefitsReduction in ForcePolicy Manual
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of the Amalgamated Cotton Garment & Allied Industries Fund v. Baltimore Sportswear, Inc.

This ERISA action involves a dispute between a multiemployer retirement plan and an employer regarding withdrawal liability. The retirement plan sued the employer to recover overdue quarterly payments, as the employer failed to make any payments after its withdrawal and did not properly initiate arbitration. The employer argued that its liability should be limited due to its net worth and that 29 U.S.C. § 1405 was not subject to arbitration. The court rejected the employer's arguments, emphasizing that the statutory scheme requires continued quarterly payments pending arbitration and that claims under § 1405 must also be raised in arbitration. Consequently, the court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff for the delinquent payments, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, while denying the employer's cross-motion for discovery.

ERISAMultiemployer Pension Plan Amendments ActMPPAAWithdrawal LiabilityPension PlanArbitrationSummary JudgmentQuarterly PaymentsInsolvent EmployersStatutory Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Colgate-Palmolive Co. Erisa Litigation

This ERISA class action case, initiated in 2007, involved allegations against Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees’ Retirement Income Plan for miscalculating pension benefits. After three years of litigation and another three years of settlement negotiations, a $45.9 million class action settlement was reached for 8,612 participants. The Court granted preliminary approval in December 2013 and final approval after a fairness hearing in April 2014. This order addresses the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs, requesting 25% of the fund ($11,475,000) for fees, $591,011.17 for costs, and $5,000 incentive awards for each of the six named plaintiffs. The Court, applying the percentage of the fund method and using empirical studies for comparison, found the requested 25% fee reasonable and granted the motion for fees, costs, and incentive awards.

Class ActionSettlement ApprovalAttorneys' FeesCommon Fund DoctrineLodestar MethodPercentage of Fund MethodERISA LitigationPension BenefitsStatute of LimitationsActuarial Experts
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Houston v. Teamsters Local 210

Pro se plaintiffs, including Houston, filed a lawsuit against an ERISA-regulated fund seeking severance pay. They argued they were entitled to benefits because their termination occurred 'within one year of' their employer ceasing operations, interpreting the phrase to include the period before cessation. The defendants contended this phrase referred only to the period after cessation and also argued that all plaintiffs, except Houston, failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that the non-Houston plaintiffs failed to exhaust remedies. For Houston's claim, the court found the plan language unambiguously supported the defendants' prospective interpretation of the 'within one year of' clause. Alternatively, even if ambiguous, the plan granted the defendants discretionary authority, and their consistent interpretation was deemed rational and not arbitrary or capricious.

ERISA BenefitsSeverance Pay DisputePlan InterpretationSummary Plan Description (SPD)Administrative ExhaustionArbitrary and Capricious StandardDiscretionary AuthorityEmployer CessationPro Se LitigantsMotion for Summary Judgment
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 1996

Local No. 46 Metallic Lathers Union v. Trataros Construction, Inc.

This case involves union trust funds suing a prime contractor (Trataros Construction Inc.), its shareholder (Costas Trataros), a surety company (Seaboard Surety Company), and a subcontractor (Construction Building Services) for unpaid union fringe benefits related to a construction project. Plaintiffs allege violations of ERISA and state laws. The court denied Trataros' motion to dismiss the ERISA claim but granted its motion to dismiss state claims due to ERISA pre-emption. The court also granted Costas Trataros' motion to dismiss all claims against him, including an ERISA claim. The motion to dismiss Count III against Seaboard Surety Company, alleging a claim under New York State Finance Law § 137, was denied, with the court ruling that ERISA pre-emption does not apply to this state surety law claim.

ERISANew York State Finance LawSurety BondCollective Bargaining AgreementUnpaid Fringe BenefitsCorporate VeilShareholder LiabilitySubcontractorPrime ContractorFederal Pre-emption
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 1996

Trustees of the Health & Welfare & the Pension Funds of the Four Joint Boards v. Schlesinger Bros.

Plaintiffs, Trustees of the Health and Welfare and Pension Funds of the Four Joint Boards and Esther Maiese, filed an action against Schlesinger Brothers, Inc. and the International Leather Goods, Plastics, Novelty and Service Workers Union, alleging violations of ERISA and LMRA. Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that defendants breached ERISA's 'sole benefit rule' by diverting contributions from the FJBC Funds to the International's Funds. They also alleged that Schlesinger violated the collective bargaining agreement under LMRA. The court determined that Schlesinger did not act as a fiduciary under ERISA and that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the LMRA claim against the employer. Similarly, the court found that the International union was not subject to fiduciary duties under ERISA when engaged in collective bargaining. Consequently, the court granted Schlesinger's motion to dismiss the entire complaint and the International's motion to dismiss the ERISA claim, leaving only the LMRA claim against the International viable.

ERISALMRAFiduciary DutyCollective Bargaining AgreementMotion to DismissPension FundsHealth and Welfare FundsUnionEmployer LiabilityStanding
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coyne Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. United States (In Re Coyne Electrical Contractors, Inc.)

This case addresses whether a New York Lien Law "trust fund" beneficiary’s claim to priority payment under Lien Law Section 71(2)(d) is preempted by ERISA. The applicant, The Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry and its Participating Funds (JIB), sought priority payment from funds held by the debtor, asserting a claim for unpaid benefits. The defendant, A-J Contracting, Inc. (A-J), challenged this, arguing ERISA preemption, specifically that the Lien Law provided an "alternative enforcement mechanism" forbidden by ERISA. The court reviewed federal preemption doctrine and ERISA's objectives, ultimately concluding that Section 71(2)(d) does not create such a mechanism as it confirms existing employer liability rather than shifting it. Therefore, the court found that ERISA does not preempt JIB's assertion of priority rights under Lien Law Section 71(2)(d).

ERISA preemptionLien Law trust fundpriority disputeunpaid employee benefitsbankruptcy estatedebtor liabilityconstruction subcontractsfederal supremacystatutory interpretationcollective bargaining agreement
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 359 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational