James Larue v. Dewolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc., et al (552 U.S. 248)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided February 20, 2008 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 552 U.S. 248 · 128 S. Ct. 1020
- Decided
- February 20, 2008
- Term
- October Term 2007
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Stevens
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. In Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U. S. 134 (1985), we held that a participant in a disability plan that paid a fixed level of bénefits could not bring suit under § 502(a)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 891, 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(2), to recover consequential damages arising from delay in the processing of her claim. In this case we consider whether that statutory provision authorizes a participant in a defined contribution pension plan to sue a fiduciary whose alleged misconduct impaired the value of plan assets in the participant’s individual account. Relying on our decision in Russell, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that § 502(a)(2) “provides remedies only for entire plans, not for individuals. . . . Recovery under this subsection must ‘inure[ ] to the benefit of the plan as a whole,’ not to particular persons with rights under the plan.” 450 F. 3d 570, 572-573 (2006) (quoting Russell, 473 U. S., at 140). While language in our Russell opinion is consistent with that conclusion, the rationale for Russell’s holding supports the opposite result in this case. I Petitioner filed this action in 2004 against his former employer, DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc. (DeWolff), and the ERISA-regulated 401(k) retirement savings plan administered by…
Excerpt of a 20,968-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.