Ingram v. Terminal Railroad Ass'n, No. 14-3589 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit under section 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B), alleging that the Plan erroneously determined his pension benefits. The district court granted summary judgment to the Plan. The court concluded that none of the conflicts of interest and procedural irregularities alleged by plaintiff “caused a serious breach of the plan administrator’s fiduciary duty” which warranted departure from the abuse-of-discretion standard of review. In this case, the district court correctly reviewed the decision of the Plan administrator for an abuse of discretion; substantial evidence supports the Plan administrator’s decision to exclude a 2006 sign-on bonus from pension-qualifying earnings and there was no abuse of discretion; and the Plan administrator’s interpretation of offsets for retirement benefits was reasonable because it was not inconsistent with Plan language, was consistent with Plan goals and ERISA, and rationally construed the offset so that the Normal Retirement Benefit under the Plan does not vary because of the form of payment chosen under another plan. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Benton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - ERISA. None of the conflicts and procedural irregularities relied upon by plaintiff caused a serious breach of the plan administrator's fiduciary duty and the district court properly reviewed the administrator's decision under the abuse of discretion standard rather than the de novo standard advanced by plaintiff; administrator did not abuse its discretion by determining plaintiff's 2006 signing bonus fell within the taxable expenses allowance exclusion and would not be included in calculating his benefits; plan administrator's interpretation of complex plan provisions concerning offsets was reasonable,consistent with plan language and consistent the plan's goal and ERISA.
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.