Amara v. Cigna, ERISA Class Actions, and Fiduciary Misrepresentations About Retirement Benefits

Thanks to Dan Schwartz of the Connecticut Employment Law Blog for bringing to my attention his comprehensive post on this important ERISA class action case of Amara v. Cigna:

A few months ago, I reported on the District Court's decision in Amara v. CIGNA, an important class-action case on ERISA retirement benefits and on alleged misrepresentations made by the Company about retirement benefits.  Over the last few months, then, the court was asked to consider the issue of what is appropriate relief from the decision. 

Late Friday, Judge Mark Kravitz issued his decision on what the appropriate remedy should be from his decision. But then, sua sponte (a nice Latin phrase meaning, in essence, "on my own"), the Court decided to stay its own judgment on the appropriate relief.  What does that mean? In essence, the court threw up its hands and conceded that the issues of damages and liability were so "unclear" that there was no good way to predict that the decision would even be upheld on appeal:

The Court also recognizes that the benefits awarded by this opinion are substantial, and that the law on which they are based is anything but settled. In light of the complexity of the issues and the weighty interests at stake, as well as the possibility that some or all of this opinion and the Liability Decision may be reversed on appeal, the Court believes that a stay is appropriate.....

The lack of clear guidance in the law and the unusual factual circumstances present in this case have convinced the Court that the outcome of any appeal is far from certain, and the Court believes a stay is therefore both appropriate and necessary.

The damages proposed:

In light of CIGNA's statements in those publications that all early retirement benefits would be protected and CIGNA's failure to warn of wear away, the Court orders and enjoins the CIGNA Plan to reform its records to reflect that all class members must now receive "A+B" benefits; that is, all class members must receive their accrued benefits under Part A, in the form in which those benefits were available under Part A, and in addition their accrued benefits under Part B [the new formula], in whatever form those benefits are available under Part B.

As Dan points out, the decision in Amara is a technical one and incredibly complex.  At this point, we will have to wait for the 2nd Circuit to weigh in, but is this the beginnings of yet another ERISA remedies case for the Supreme Court to hear?

PS