Blue Cross Blue Shield of MN v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 14-3457 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseERISA Plaintiffs, administrators of Employee Benefit Plans governed by the Employees Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., who entered into securities lending agreements with Wells Fargo, seek to reverse the district court's judgment that it was bound by collateral estoppel and thus required to find against ERISA Plaintiffs and in favor of Wells Fargo on their ERISA claims. Other plaintiffs brought state common law claims. ERISA Plaintiffs and common-law plaintiffs were represented by the same law firm. Following the trial, the parties simultaneously submitted Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with respect to the ERISA claims. In its submission, Wells Fargo asserted that collateral estoppel should apply and that based on the jury verdict, the court was bound to find that there was no breach of fiduciary duty. The district court determined that it was constrained by collateral estoppel to render judgment on ERISA Plaintiffs’ claims consistent with the jury’s determination and issued judgment, dismissing the ERISA Plaintiffs’ ERISA claims with prejudice. ERISA Plaintiffs appeal, arguing that the district court erred in failing to find that Wells Fargo waived any right to assert that the district court was bound by the jury’s findings. The court vacated because the district court failed to consider whether the parties waived the application of collateral estoppel. The court remanded for the district court determine whether waiver occurred.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Smith, Circuit Judge] Civil case - ERISA. In suit by ERISA plan administrators who participated in defendant's Securities Lending Program alleging defendant caused them substantial losses by imprudent investments and breaches of its fiduciary duty, the district court bifurcated the common-law claims and the ERISA claims and tried the common-law claims to a jury; the jury found that defendant had not breached its fiduciary duty and the court applied this finding to the ERISA claims under the doctrine of collateral estoppel; the district court erred, however, in failing to consider whether defendant had waived the right to assert in the ERISA proceedings that the court was bound by the jury findings; remanded to the district court to determine whether waiver did in fact occur.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.