John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Harris Trust and Savings Bank, As Trustee of the Sperry Master Retirement Trust No. 2 (510 U.S. 86)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided December 13, 1993 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 510 U.S. 86 · 114 S. Ct. 517
- Decided
- December 13, 1993
- Term
- October Term 1993
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority author
- Justice Ginsburg
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents an issue of statutory construction— whether the fiduciary standards stated in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) govern an insurance company’s conduct in relation to certain annuity contracts. Fiduciary status under ERISA generally attends the management of “plan assets.” The statute, however, contains no comprehensive definition of “plan assets.” Our task in this case is to determine the bounds of a statutory exclusion from “plan asset” categorization, an exclusion Congress prescribed for “guaranteed benefit policies].” The question before us arises in the context of a contract between defendant-petitioner John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company (Hancock) and plaintiff-respondent Harris Trust and Savings Bank (Harris), current trustee of a Sperry Rand Corporation Retirement Plan. Pursuant to its contract with Harris, Hancock receives deposits from the Sperry Plan. Harris asserts that Hancock is managing “plan assets,” and therefore bears fiduciary responsibility. Hancock maintains that its undertaking fits within the statutory exclusion for “guaranteed benefit policies].” “Guaranteed benefit policy” is not a trade term originating in the insurance industry; it is a statutory invention placed in ERISA and there defined as an insurance policy or contract that “provides for…
Excerpt of a 43,549-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.