Waller v. Blue Cross of California

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plaintiff stated an ERISA claim for breach of fiduciary duty where it alleged fiduciary imprudently based the choice of an annuity provider on the size of a potential reversion
• stating that the decision to terminate a plan, as opposed to implementing that decision, is not a fiduciary act
• noting that the challenge 16 to the implementation of a plan design decision falls within fiduciary duties under ERISA
• holding 8 that where “plaintiffs attack not the decision to terminate, but rather the implementation of the 9 decision … that distinction is dispositive” and the company “acted in a fiduciary capacity”
• denying the defendants Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss because the court was required to accept as true the plaintiff’s allegation that the action was filed within three years of obtaining actual knowledge of the defendant’s alleged breach of its fiduciary duty
• employer’s choice of annuity providers on basis of maximizing reversion of surplus assets on plan termination can violate ERISA fiduciary duties; employer “acted in a fiduciary capacity when choosing annuity providers to satisfy plan liabilities.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).