Pension Plan
A class of recently-retired employees sued an oil and gas company and its officers who served on the committee that administered their pension plan, alleging that the director of employee benefits had misrepresented the benefits available to early retirees when they inquired about the payments they would receive. The retirees also claimed that the defendants misplaced critical records of plan participants, which resulted in an underpayment of benefits otherwise due. The suite was dismissed, but the matter was settled during the appeal process. The settlement and legal costs incurred by the oil and gas company totaled $1.25 million.

Group Health Plan
A secretary at an auto-parts manufacturer suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and subsequently required skilled nursing care. Her employer changed its group health policy to a different plan, and the secretary enrolled in the new plan based on the mistaken representation that she would receive the same level of nursing care coverage. When the new plan stopped paying for the nursing services, the secretary filed suite, alleging that the employer breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA by making misleading representations about the extent of coverage to which she was entitled. Defense costs mounted to $350,000, and the parties finally settled for $300,000.

Profit Sharing/Pension Plan
A well-established heating and plumbing contractor created a profit sharing and pension plan for its employees. The Chairman, who served as trustee for the plan, had extensive knowledge and experience in the local real estate market. After substantial investigation, including personal visits to each property and interviews with each borrower, the Chairman invested pension fund assets in local residential mortgages. These investments eventually constituted half the value of the plan because they achieved a good rate of return. Nevertheless, the Department of Labor sued the contractor and the Chairman for failing to sufficiently diversify plan assets. After a five-day trial and testimony from several experts, the Court agreed with the contractor and the Chairman that the investments were prudent. Total defense costs incurred by the contractor were $600,000.