Practice Areas & Industries: Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC

Practice/Industry Group Overview

The lawyers of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney have litigated many disputes involving the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Our ERISA group is among the largest within a national law firm in the United States.

We have handled local and regional ERISA controversies and significant national cases, both at the district court and appellate levels. Our lawyers also have served as expert witnesses in many ERISA cases.

Services Available

Our work covers such diverse ERISA litigation as breaches of fiduciary duty, alleged impermissible cutbacks of protected benefits, plan amendments, scope of responsibility of former fund fiduciaries, disputed claims for benefits from pension, health and welfare plans, claims against service providers, fiduciaries, investment managers and trustees, top hat plan issues and plan asset/contribution requirements.

Among the cases our lawyers have handled are these representative examples:

• Responsibility of Former Fund Fiduciaries. Briefed and argued a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, making new law regarding the scope of responsibility of former fund fiduciaries. Glaziers Funds v. Janney Montgomery Scott
• Conversion of Fund Assets. Represented funds in pursuing claims against various service providers, fiduciaries and trustees stemming from conversion of fund assets by investment manager. Glaziers Funds v. Newbridge et al.
• Investment Manager Misconduct. Represented defendant service provider (fund accountants) in suits brought by funds and by class of fund beneficiaries as a consequence of investment manager misconduct. Masters, Mates and Pilots Litigation
• Withdrawal Liability. Prosecuted claims on behalf of funds and defended claims against "control group" defendants.
• MEWA Litigation. Defended suit brought by MEWA and a related trade association against benefits consultant stemming from collapse of MEWA.
• Contribution Litigation. Represented multi employer funds and employers in disputes over contribution requirements.
• Benefit Claims. Represented funds and employers in suits over benefit denials, including the defense of a class action against employer and fund stemming from consequences of the October 1987 stock market crash.
• SIPC and Coverage Claims. Represented funds, employers and service providers in disputes over scope of fiduciary policies and in disputes over scope of SIPC's obligations to funds for losses stemming from investment manager defalcations.
• Plan Amendment Litigation. Represented funds and employers in defense of claims plan amendments caused impermissible forfeitures.
• Section 510 Matters
  • Represented a client in a class action alleging violation of Section 510 of ERISA; successfully defended the claims in the District Court and was involved with the appeal to the Third Circuit which subsequently reversed. Gavalik, et. al v. The Continental Group, Inc., et al. (United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania)
  • Represented a client in a nationwide class action alleging violations of Section 510 of ERISA and Section 1961 of RICO. One of three trial lawyers responsible for the defense of this matter which consumed over eight years of litigation prior to settlement being reached. McLendon, et al. v. The Continental Group, Inc., et al.
  • Retained to represent the defendant in claims alleging violation of Section 510 of ERISA after successful defense of the Gavalik and Jakub cases. Amaro v. The Continental Group, Inc. (United States District Court for the Southern District of California)
  • Obtained attorneys fees and costs from the plaintiff following a bench trial with a verdict in favor of the plan. Foley v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, 30 F. Supp. 2d 366 (WDNY 1998), 22 Employee Benefits Cas. 1586, Pens. Plan Guide (CCH) P 23946V (1998)
  • Achieved summary judgment and successfully argued that the plaintiff's case was pre-empted by ERISA and that ERISA provided no remedy. Davis v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, General Pension Board of Bethlehem Steel Corporation, and Michael P. Dopera, Plan Administrator et al, 97-CV-0346E(M), 1998 WL 15956 (W.D.N.Y.).
• Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
  • Represented a major utility company in connection with alleged breaches of fiduciary duty regarding inappropriate amendments to a pension plan. Americo Dicioccio, et al. v. Duquesne Light Company (United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania)
  • Defended a class action brought by a steel manufacturer's salaried retirees alleging that the company had breached the terms of the plan and the settlement agreement which settled the original Eardman v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation class action in 1985. See Eardman, Heck et al on behalf of themselves and as representatives of a class v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Employee Welfare Benefit Plans, Secretary of the Insurance Boards.
  • Represented the plaintiff over alleged violations of fiduciary duties. Successful settlement of case for plaintiff. Greer Industries, Inc., v. Huntington National Bank (United States District Court for the District of Ohio)
  • Represented a plaintiff in connection with alleged breaches of fiduciary duty pertaining to the professional advice given by an insurance broker who sought funding vehicles for a pension plan; vicarious liability of Kansas City Life for action of the broker in claims based upon federal law. Case presently pending. The Mars National Bank v. Kansas City Life Insurance Company and John Utz (United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania).
• Failure to Provide Benefits. Successful defense in connection with claims being made regarding a failure to provide benefits under an employee benefits plan. Court granted motion to dismiss. Dorothy J. Weber, v. Unum Life Insurance Company Of America, Sewickley Valley Hospital And Medical Center Of Beaver County, N/K/A Valley Medical Facilities, Inc. (United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania).
• Home Care Benefits. Represented a client before the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, which ruled that the plaintiffs were not entitled to home care benefits sought because they had not given the client prior notice of the hiring of non-preferred providers and had not obtained the client's approval for services rendered outside of New Jersey. In addition, the use of uncertified and unsupervised individuals to provide the alleged home care precluded benefits. Wood v. First Option Health Plan.
• Forfeiture of Benefits. Successfully defended an ERISA lawsuit in the Eastern District of Michigan, where a retired employee claimed he was not receiving the total amount of benefit he was due under the retirement plan; and that the company violated the terms of the plan and federal regulations by failing to notify him that he would not receive benefits until he actually retired, since he was working past the normal retirement age of 65. The Eastern District granted summary judgement and dismissed the case, holding: (1) the employer's construction of the plan and calculation of the employee's benefits was consistent with the plans' terms and basic ERISA concepts; (2) the employee had not demonstrated that he had forfeited any benefits by waiting until age 67 to retire; and (3) the employee had constructive notice that he would not receive retirement benefits until he actually retired. The employee has appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
• Section 502 Cases
  • McCarrick v. The Social Insurance Plan of Bethlehem Steel Corporation
  • For Ford Motor Company, summary judgment granted in favor of the Plan. Faso v. Ford UAW Retirement Plan and Ford Motor Company UAW Retirement Board of Administration, 96 CV-724 (WDNY 1998).
• Contribution Litigation. Represented multi-employer funds and employers in disputes over contribution requirements.
• Benefit Claims. Represented fund and employers in suits over benefit denials.
• Plan Amendment Litigation. Represented funds and employers in defense of claims challenging plan amendments.

In addition, our lawyers have been involved in many forfeiture claims, as well as suits over the propriety of our client's denial of benefits under the terms of the plans.