Gordon v. Deloitte and Touche, No. 12-55114 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff appealed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Plan based on her failure to file the action within the applicable limitation period. The court concluded that plaintiff's right to file an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., action accrued no later than the date her administrative appeal option expired, May 4, 2004, but plaintiff did not file the pending complaint until January 31, 2011. Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that plaintiff's action was barred by the four-year statute of limitation. The court held that the statue of limitations was not revived. Reviving a limitation period when an insurance company reconsiders a claim after the limitation period has run would discourage reconsideration by insurers even when reconsideration might be warranted. The court rejected plaintiff's estoppel and waiver claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Affirming the district court’s summary judgment, the panel held that an ERISA action was barred by California’s four-year statute of limitation governing actions involving written contracts. The panel held that under federal law, the plaintiff’s claim accrued no later than the date her administrative appeal right expired, and the ERISA plan insurer’s reconsideration of her claim did not revive the statute of limitation. The panel held that the ERISA plan was not estopped from asserting a statute of limitation defense based on the insurer’s representation that the plaintiff could bring an ERISA action. Turning to California law for guidance, the panel held that the plan did not waive its statute of limitation defense based on the insurer’s representation. Dissenting, Judge Reinhardt wrote that the plan waived its right to invoke the statute of limitation by inviting the plaintiff to reopen her case, submit new documents, and appeal if dissatisfied.
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.