United States Sixth Circuit

In plaintiff's suit against his employer-sponsored ERISA plan an actuary, actuary, alleging breach of contractual agreement and other claims, arising from a notice of reduction in his monthly retirement benefits due to an incorrect calculation and requiring him to repay the excess he had received for nearly two years, district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) dismissal of plaintiff's equitable estoppel claim is reversed as he has alleged facts that could fulfill the requirements of traditional elements of estoppel; 2) dismissal of plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the defendants is affirmed; and 3) dismissal of plaintiff's contract claim is affirmed as the district court was correct to conclude that plaintiff cannot recover benefits under section 1132 of ERISA based on a modification of the plan or a separate supplemental contract.

Appellate Information

• Argued 03/05/2010
• Decided 05/19/2010
• Published 05/19/2010

Judges

• Before SILER and ROGERS, Circuit Judges; BELL, District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:Robert Armand Perez, Sr., The Perez Law Firm Co., L.P .A., Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellants. Bernard William Wharton, McCaslin, Imbus & McCaslin, Cincinnati, Ohio, Patricia A. Shlonsky, Ulmer & Berne LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees. ON BRIEF:Robert Armand Perez, Sr., The Perez Law Firm Co., L.P.A., Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellants. R. Gary Winters, McCaslin, Imbus & McCaslin, Cincinnati, Ohio, Patricia A. Shlonsky, Rebecca B. Jacobs, Ulmer & Berne LLP, Columbus, Ohio, Paul J. Cosgrove, Ulmer & Berne LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellees.