LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc.
| LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided February 20, 2008 | |
| Full case name | LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc. |
| Citations | 552 U.S. 248 (more) |
| Holding | |
| Although ERISA does not provide a remedy for individual injuries distinct from plan injuries, it does authorize someone with a retirement account to recover from an account manager who commits fiduciary breaches that impair the value of plan assets in that person's individual account. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Stevens, joined by unanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 | |
LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc., 552 U.S. 248 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, although the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) does not provide a remedy for individual injuries distinct from plan injuries, it does authorize someone with a retirement account to recover from an account manager who commits fiduciary breaches that impair the value of plan assets in that person's individual account.[1][2]
Background
James LaRue, a participant in a defined contribution pension plan, alleged that the plan administrator's failure to follow LaRue's investment directions "depleted" his interest in the plan by approximately $150,000 and amounted to a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The federal district court granted respondents judgment on the pleadings, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Relying on Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Russell, the Fourth Circuit held that ERISA Section 502(a)(2) provides remedies only for entire plans, not for individuals.
Opinion of the court
The court issued an opinion on February 20, 2008.[1]
Subsequent developments
References
External links
- Text of LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc., 552 U.S. 248 (2008) is available from: Cornell Findlaw Justia
This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain.