LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assoc., Inc., et al

In LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assoc., Inc., et al, 552 U.S. ____ (2008) (slip op. 06-856)(Feb. 20, 2008), the United States Supreme Court, deciding a case under ERISA, held “that although Section 502(a)(2) does not provide a remedy for individual injuries distinct from plan injuries, that provision does authorize recovery for fiduciary breaches that impair the value of plan assets in a participant’s account.”  The court discussed the diferences between defined benefit and defined contribution plans.  The Court noted that in Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134(1985), relied upon by the Fourth Circuit in reaching the opposite result, that the plan involved a defined benefit, while in LaRue, the plan involved a defined contribution.  Thus, the rationale underlying Russell supported the “opposite result in this case.”

20 February 2008 | ERISA and Supreme Court Opinions | Comments