[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
Watson versus EMC Corp.

[00:00:02] Speaker 04:
Number 22, 1356.

[00:00:07] Speaker 04:
And Mr. Cantor, it looks like you're ready to go.

[00:00:11] Speaker 00:
I am, Your Honor.

[00:00:13] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:00:15] Speaker 00:
Good morning.

[00:00:16] Speaker 00:
May it please the Court.

[00:00:17] Speaker 00:
My name is Glenn Cantor.

[00:00:19] Speaker 00:
I am counsel for appellant Marie Watson.

[00:00:21] Speaker 00:
And I would like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal.

[00:00:27] Speaker 00:
I feel a little strange in that I feel as if I'm presenting arguments for the first time to this court because the critical arguments in this case were never addressed by the district court.

[00:00:42] Speaker 00:
The district court seemed to accept without deciding that surcharge was an appropriate remedy.

[00:00:50] Speaker 00:
And the district court also seemed to accept that a breach of judicial duty had occurred

[00:00:56] Speaker 00:
but then found that this was not the correct circumstance to apply surcharge.

[00:01:03] Speaker 00:
But the reasoning was never explained, and it was completely illogical, if I may explain.

[00:01:10] Speaker 00:
The district court found that it wasn't appropriate to apply surcharge because one, premiums had not been paid for the life coverage at issue.

[00:01:20] Speaker 00:
Well, we agree.

[00:01:21] Speaker 00:
If premiums had been paid for the life coverage,

[00:01:25] Speaker 00:
The benefits would have been paid, or we would have been pursuing med life in an A1B claim.

[00:01:30] Speaker 00:
The district court never responded or answered the question of, well, but why weren't those premiums paid?

[00:01:39] Speaker 00:
And the answer was, because Mr. and Mrs. Watson received inaccurate information from EMC.

[00:01:47] Speaker 00:
The district court also said, it's not appropriate, potentially, because the employer is not

[00:01:54] Speaker 00:
obligated under the plan to give information about how to convert the life coverage.

[00:01:59] Speaker 04:
Well, counsel, let me ask you about what the district court did.

[00:02:07] Speaker 04:
I'm looking at the district court order.

[00:02:10] Speaker 04:
And at the end of the order, it says that given that Mr. Watson did not pay any premiums toward a life insurance policy, the plaintiff now seeks to recover.

[00:02:20] Speaker 04:
The court does not find that the request for a surcharge

[00:02:23] Speaker 04:
The amount of life insurance constitutes appropriate equitable relief.

[00:02:31] Speaker 04:
Is it permissible for, in considering whether equitable relief

[00:02:38] Speaker 04:
should be ordered, is it permissible for the court or is it within the discretion of the court to consider that in this instance, Mr. Watson did not maintain his coverage because he didn't convert to an individual plan or pay the premiums?

[00:02:57] Speaker 00:
With due respect to this record, my answer would be no.

[00:03:00] Speaker 00:
It would not be appropriate because if the claim had been under A1B,

[00:03:07] Speaker 00:
for benefits, it would be extraordinarily appropriate and on point that premiums weren't paid.

[00:03:13] Speaker 00:
The question here is, why weren't they paid?

[00:03:16] Speaker 00:
And were they not paid because of the actions of the employer?

[00:03:22] Speaker 00:
To get back to what I was saying is that the district court said, well, the employer wasn't obligated to give information about conversion of the life from group to individual.

[00:03:32] Speaker 00:
And I'm not even going to contest that.

[00:03:35] Speaker 00:
Because the EMC could have said to Mr. Watson when he emailed and said, I want to pay my benefits.

[00:03:42] Speaker 00:
It could have said, that's not our job.

[00:03:45] Speaker 00:
Look at the plan or call him at life.

[00:03:48] Speaker 00:
But that's not what EMC did.

[00:03:50] Speaker 00:
If the court can go to, I believe, it's appendix 117.

[00:03:59] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry, 118.

[00:04:03] Speaker 00:
He emailed and asked about his benefits.

[00:04:06] Speaker 00:
And I would also refer to appendix 117, which is his benefit statement that lists his life and insurance.

[00:04:14] Speaker 00:
And he says, I took VSP, voluntary separation, on, he says, 12-31-216.

[00:04:20] Speaker 00:
He meant 215.

[00:04:22] Speaker 00:
My pay ended on 11-24-216.

[00:04:25] Speaker 00:
How do I start paying for my benefits at the employee rate for next year?

[00:04:30] Speaker 00:
He's asking about all of his benefits.

[00:04:33] Speaker 00:
from EMC was not comment life.

[00:04:36] Speaker 00:
We'll deal with your health, but you comment life.

[00:04:39] Speaker 00:
The response was, good morning.

[00:04:42] Speaker 00:
You will receive a bill, it says form, they meant from ADP, pay flex to continue paying for your benefits.

[00:04:51] Speaker 00:
It doesn't say health benefits or vision benefits, but not life.

[00:04:57] Speaker 00:
It says, benefits remain active during the transition.

[00:05:01] Speaker 00:
And it's been stipulated

[00:05:02] Speaker 00:
by the parties that he got a bill, and he and his wife paid it through his death.

[00:05:09] Speaker 00:
Now.

[00:05:11] Speaker 04:
By the way, is there anything inaccurate about that email vote, the November 30 email?

[00:05:16] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:05:17] Speaker 00:
He asked about his benefits.

[00:05:20] Speaker 00:
And the response is, we're going to send you a bill for your benefits.

[00:05:24] Speaker 00:
If I can digress just for a second about the law.

[00:05:26] Speaker 04:
But they did send him a bill about his benefits, the benefits he was eligible

[00:05:32] Speaker 04:
to receive, right?

[00:05:32] Speaker 00:
No, no.

[00:05:34] Speaker 00:
He was eligible to receive life.

[00:05:37] Speaker 00:
If he converted.

[00:05:38] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:05:39] Speaker 00:
And they say, that's my point.

[00:05:41] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, they could have said and should have said, deal with us for your health.

[00:05:47] Speaker 00:
Life, look at your plan, call MetLife.

[00:05:49] Speaker 00:
They don't say that.

[00:05:50] Speaker 00:
He doesn't know that.

[00:05:51] Speaker 00:
He's a lay person.

[00:05:52] Speaker 04:
What do you do with the MetLife letter

[00:05:58] Speaker 04:
Wasn't that November 29 and talks about converting from group to an individual plan?

[00:06:06] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, Marie Watson contended, and she dealt with their bills, that she never got that letter.

[00:06:12] Speaker 04:
But if I can just go to... I understand that, but there is the letter.

[00:06:20] Speaker 04:
Why would it be unreasonable for the district court to infer that

[00:06:24] Speaker 04:
that it was sent.

[00:06:26] Speaker 04:
By the way, it wouldn't have been sent to Mr. Watson.

[00:06:30] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:06:30] Speaker 04:
So she contends that she didn't handle better, but at that point in time, it would be Mr. Watson, wouldn't it?

[00:06:39] Speaker 00:
Yes, but she advised on her appeal that she dealt with other billings.

[00:06:46] Speaker 00:
She handled these things.

[00:06:48] Speaker 04:
Just one other thing in connection with this.

[00:06:50] Speaker 04:
this reference to the ADP billing.

[00:06:54] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:06:55] Speaker 04:
Was there an example of one of those bills in the record?

[00:06:58] Speaker 00:
No.

[00:07:00] Speaker 04:
I thought not, but I needed to ask.

[00:07:02] Speaker 04:
I was looking for it.

[00:07:05] Speaker 00:
I know I'm counsel.

[00:07:08] Speaker 00:
I'm responsible for all of it, but I was not counseled during the appeal.

[00:07:11] Speaker 00:
I don't know why I was not in the record.

[00:07:12] Speaker 00:
I don't know why it wasn't produced by EMC, other than there is a reference that EMC no longer had a relationship with ADP, so they couldn't get it.

[00:07:23] Speaker 00:
But it's not in the record.

[00:07:24] Speaker 00:
So we don't even know what that bill says.

[00:07:26] Speaker 00:
All we know is that EMC said, we will send you a bill for your benefits.

[00:07:33] Speaker 00:
They paid.

[00:07:35] Speaker 00:
And I just want to go to the law, the well settled law that says, once an ERISA beneficiary has requested information from an ERISA fiduciary who is aware of the beneficiary's status and situation, the fiduciary has an obligation to convey complete and accurate information

[00:07:56] Speaker 00:
material to the beneficiary's circumstance, even if that information comprises elements by which the beneficiary is not specifically inquired.

[00:08:04] Speaker 00:
It's Hornbrook-Arissa law.

[00:08:06] Speaker 04:
Now, we would contend... The district court did assume that there was breach for purposes of its analysis, correct?

[00:08:15] Speaker 00:
She assumed there was breach, but then didn't do an analysis of the result of the breach.

[00:08:20] Speaker 00:
Well, no, I understand.

[00:08:21] Speaker 04:
But it seems now you're arguing breach.

[00:08:26] Speaker 04:
You started out with an argument that assuming breach, or that there is a breach where the district court went wrong, was the next step.

[00:08:38] Speaker 04:
Isn't that your argument?

[00:08:40] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:08:41] Speaker 00:
The district court assumed a breach, but then goes off on a tangent, basically saying, I'm not going to allow a breach of a judiciary claim and a remedy because

[00:08:54] Speaker 00:
She can't pursue an A1B claim because she didn't pay premiums.

[00:08:57] Speaker 00:
Well, we know she didn't pay them, but why didn't she pay them?

[00:09:00] Speaker 00:
So are you arguing legal error?

[00:09:03] Speaker 00:
By the district court?

[00:09:04] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:09:05] Speaker 00:
Clear error that she didn't deal with the law that... EMC, a $67 billion corporation, affirmatively accepted the obligation to provide information to Mr. Watson.

[00:09:22] Speaker 00:
The information provided was neither complete nor accurate.

[00:09:26] Speaker 00:
It could have said ADP will send you a bill for certain aspects, but for your life, you need to go to MetLife or look at your plan.

[00:09:34] Speaker 00:
It did not do so.

[00:09:36] Speaker 00:
It was silent.

[00:09:37] Speaker 00:
No.

[00:09:38] Speaker 03:
Council, I just have to stop you there.

[00:09:41] Speaker 03:
What do you want us to do?

[00:09:43] Speaker 00:
I want you to remand this case.

[00:09:44] Speaker 03:
I mean, before you answer.

[00:09:46] Speaker 03:
Oh, I'm sorry.

[00:09:49] Speaker 03:
What do you want us to do?

[00:09:50] Speaker 03:
In the sense that what is missing?

[00:09:54] Speaker 03:
I mean, the thing, and you just agreed with Judge Matheson, is that the district court did assume a breach.

[00:10:03] Speaker 03:
So do you want us to remand it for a fuller explanation of the breach?

[00:10:09] Speaker 03:
That's the part I just don't want.

[00:10:11] Speaker 03:
I don't understand what you want us to do.

[00:10:14] Speaker 02:
Well, let me follow up on that question.

[00:10:19] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:10:22] Speaker 02:
I don't see that the court ever decided whether EMC actually breached a fiduciary duty.

[00:10:34] Speaker 02:
Talked about it.

[00:10:37] Speaker 02:
and said that Ms.

[00:10:38] Speaker 02:
Watson's not developed equitable relief, even if they breached a fiduciary duty.

[00:10:45] Speaker 02:
And don't we need to have that middle question answered?

[00:10:49] Speaker 02:
Did they breach a fiduciary duty?

[00:10:53] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:10:54] Speaker 00:
And to answer Judge Ide's question, I think there are two answers.

[00:10:59] Speaker 00:
One is, Mr. Watson died in September 2017.

[00:11:04] Speaker 00:
And the maximum of justice delayed is justice denied.

[00:11:08] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:11:08] Speaker 00:
Watson has been waiting almost seven years to get her benefits.

[00:11:12] Speaker 00:
So ideally, I would like this court to look at these facts and say, yes, there was a breach.

[00:11:19] Speaker 00:
And if there was a breach, the only appropriate remedy is surcharge.

[00:11:23] Speaker 00:
However, I realize that it's not typically the purview of this court to answer questions in the first instance.

[00:11:29] Speaker 00:
So I suppose my response to your question is,

[00:11:34] Speaker 00:
to remand this case back to district court and say, you need to conduct an analysis as to whether EMC's statement to Mr. Watson that you are going to get a bill for the benefits you're asking about and that he gets a bill which is

[00:11:58] Speaker 00:
clearly inadequate, it's not complete, it's not accurate, is a breach of judiciary duty.

[00:12:05] Speaker 00:
If it is, well, in that instance, even the district court said surcharge would be the remedy.

[00:12:13] Speaker 00:
There's no problem with that as a remedy.

[00:12:17] Speaker 00:
Well, the district court basically said, I just kind of find a breach of judiciary duty, but just leaves it hanging.

[00:12:28] Speaker 00:
But says, no, because they didn't pay premiums, I can't award surcharge.

[00:12:33] Speaker 00:
But once again, if they had paid premiums, it would be an A1B case.

[00:12:38] Speaker 00:
And they would have probably, it would have been paid.

[00:12:41] Speaker 00:
If you look at 183, two years later, EMC thinks this was a covered benefit.

[00:12:48] Speaker 00:
There's emails between EMC and MetLife two years after Mr. Watson's death saying, yes, it looks like it's a payable claim.

[00:12:56] Speaker 00:
And then they backtrack.

[00:12:57] Speaker 00:
So even they were confused.

[00:12:59] Speaker 00:
If the $67 billion corporation that's hiring ADP, a $12 billion annual revenue vendor, can't get this straight, how do you place the burden on these laypeople who did what they were supposed to do?

[00:13:14] Speaker 00:
They were supposed to ask.

[00:13:16] Speaker 00:
They asked the question.

[00:13:17] Speaker 00:
And once again, EMC could have said, we're not going to answer that.

[00:13:22] Speaker 00:
Read your plan or go to midlife.

[00:13:24] Speaker 00:
They affirmatively stepped up and said, here's the answer to your question.

[00:13:30] Speaker 00:
If you're going to answer the question, answer it correctly.

[00:13:33] Speaker 00:
And if you're not going to answer it correctly, then stand up and live with the consequences.

[00:13:38] Speaker 00:
Because it's the Watsons, the deceased Mr. Watson and his widow, who are bearing the burden of EMC's mistake.

[00:13:50] Speaker 00:
They're fiduciary.

[00:13:51] Speaker 00:
They have the highest burden under the law.

[00:13:53] Speaker 04:
Would it have made any difference?

[00:13:55] Speaker 04:
I know we don't have the ADP bill.

[00:13:58] Speaker 04:
Would it have made any difference if the ADP bill had a line item on it, just laying out the cost for the various benefits, and there isn't one for life insurance?

[00:14:16] Speaker 00:
It could have.

[00:14:17] Speaker 00:
You're talking, I think, comparative negligence, which has no place in that you have a fiduciary.

[00:14:25] Speaker 00:
Now, if you're going to say that Mr. Watson should have known, potentially, but we don't know.

[00:14:31] Speaker 00:
I think one thing we can be assured of based upon

[00:14:36] Speaker 00:
Appendix 117, where the document shows that from the date he was eligible, he purchased coverage, 663,000.

[00:14:46] Speaker 00:
He kept it all the time when he was an employee of EMC.

[00:14:50] Speaker 00:
And the record shows that Mrs. Watson said he declined coverage with his new employer because he was under the belief that he still had coverage.

[00:14:59] Speaker 00:
It is unfair, it is inequitable to allow EMC to drop the ball

[00:15:06] Speaker 00:
to not comply with its obligations and then make Mr. and Mrs. Watson bear that burden.

[00:15:12] Speaker 00:
They're a fiduciary.

[00:15:14] Speaker 00:
Mr. and Mrs. Watson are not.

[00:15:15] Speaker 00:
They're lay people.

[00:15:17] Speaker 04:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:15:18] Speaker 04:
Appreciate your argument.

[00:15:20] Speaker 04:
We'll now hear from Mr. Barnstein.

[00:15:28] Speaker 01:
Thank you, and good morning.

[00:15:32] Speaker 01:
It may please the court.

[00:15:33] Speaker 01:
I'm Michael Bernstein from Robinson and Kohl, and we represent the defendant EMC Corp in this matter.

[00:15:38] Speaker 01:
I think that from the outset, I want you to understand, we believe that the district court's opinion should be upheld in all respect, and we disagree.

[00:15:48] Speaker 03:
Even its reasoning?

[00:15:50] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:15:51] Speaker 01:
I'll explain.

[00:15:52] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:15:52] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:15:53] Speaker 01:
Well, I disagree with Mr. Cantor's description of the response by

[00:16:00] Speaker 01:
by EMC to the email that it got from the decedent.

[00:16:08] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry.

[00:16:09] Speaker 03:
I just have to start with you there.

[00:16:11] Speaker 03:
There was no factual finding here.

[00:16:13] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:16:14] Speaker 03:
What you're telling us was not actually found.

[00:16:17] Speaker 03:
What your opposing counsel told us was not actually found.

[00:16:22] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:16:22] Speaker 01:
The court danced around the question of whether or not there was a fiduciary breach.

[00:16:28] Speaker 01:
And so she never actually got to that question.

[00:16:32] Speaker 03:
Don't we need that question answered?

[00:16:33] Speaker 01:
I don't, and here's why.

[00:16:36] Speaker 01:
Because the court made factual findings about whether or not the equitable remedy of surcharge was available.

[00:16:44] Speaker 01:
And she found that the plaintiff was ineligible for surcharge.

[00:16:48] Speaker 01:
So you don't need the breach, because even if you found the breach, her reasoning was that the plaintiff was ineligible because of two

[00:16:59] Speaker 01:
Two things, both of which are factual.

[00:17:03] Speaker 01:
And I don't think they're really in dispute, either.

[00:17:05] Speaker 01:
So the first was that they didn't pay any premium for life insurance.

[00:17:11] Speaker 02:
Well, if you paid the premiums, if the counsel had paid the premiums, you wouldn't be in this situation.

[00:17:18] Speaker 02:
under a different section.

[00:17:20] Speaker 02:
That's true.

[00:17:21] Speaker 02:
But I mean, that is an important fact.

[00:17:23] Speaker 02:
Well, I mean, you say that's true.

[00:17:26] Speaker 02:
But that seems to be a good issue.

[00:17:32] Speaker 02:
And she found that he didn't pay the premiums.

[00:17:36] Speaker 02:
Therefore, there's no equitable relief.

[00:17:38] Speaker 02:
It doesn't make any sense.

[00:17:40] Speaker 01:
No, I think what she was saying was that they didn't pay premiums.

[00:17:44] Speaker 01:
It's not reasonable to expect that you would have coverage.

[00:17:48] Speaker 01:
under those circumstances.

[00:17:50] Speaker 02:
Well, when the company said, you keep paying the bill we sent, and you'll be good.

[00:18:01] Speaker 02:
So did he keep paying the bill?

[00:18:04] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:18:07] Speaker 01:
I think the problem there, are you done?

[00:18:09] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry.

[00:18:10] Speaker 01:
I don't want to interrupt.

[00:18:13] Speaker 01:
Go ahead.

[00:18:14] Speaker 01:
I think the problem there is we have to look at the question that was asked by the decedent.

[00:18:20] Speaker 01:
The decedent didn't just say, how do I continue my benefits?

[00:18:25] Speaker 01:
It was very specific.

[00:18:27] Speaker 01:
It said, how do I continue my benefits at the employee rate?

[00:18:33] Speaker 01:
Now, the employee rate was only available for certain types of benefits.

[00:18:39] Speaker 01:
It said so in the separation agreement.

[00:18:41] Speaker 01:
You could only.

[00:18:42] Speaker 03:
I just have to stop you again.

[00:18:43] Speaker 03:
That was not found, was it?

[00:18:46] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry?

[00:18:46] Speaker 03:
What you're seeing right now is not a factual finding that we're reviewing, is it?

[00:18:53] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:18:54] Speaker 01:
I don't think, no, it's not.

[00:18:55] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:18:55] Speaker 03:
Well, I guess I'm wondering how we can rely on it, because there were no factual findings by the district court on the precise point you're talking about.

[00:19:06] Speaker 01:
Or am I missing that?

[00:19:07] Speaker 01:
No, I don't think that you need it.

[00:19:09] Speaker 01:
I mean, the facts are what they are.

[00:19:11] Speaker 01:
This isn't a disputed fact.

[00:19:15] Speaker 01:
I don't think that any party is saying that this isn't the email that Mr. Watson sent.

[00:19:22] Speaker 03:
I think your opposing counsel says an average person who would read this email would understand this to say, how do I continue all my benefits?

[00:19:34] Speaker 03:
You're saying what a person or how that should be looked at is not the life insurance benefit.

[00:19:42] Speaker 03:
It wouldn't include the life insurance benefit, correct?

[00:19:45] Speaker 01:
I mean, that's where you were going.

[00:19:48] Speaker 01:
If you're basing your question and you're modifying the benefits by limiting it to the benefits that will be paid at the employee rate,

[00:20:02] Speaker 01:
then you're making a different request than all of my benefits.

[00:20:07] Speaker 01:
And again, another fact that's not in dispute was that at the time of the email that Mr. Watson sent, the MetLife policy had already terminated.

[00:20:17] Speaker 01:
It had already lapsed.

[00:20:20] Speaker 01:
And he had already received, according to MetLife, the notice of conversion.

[00:20:26] Speaker 01:
So he could have taken steps to

[00:20:32] Speaker 01:
Convert his policy, get an individual policy, and pay his premiums with life.

[00:20:35] Speaker 01:
He just did it.

[00:20:37] Speaker 03:
And I understand that.

[00:20:38] Speaker 03:
But how you describe what the district court said was the premiums weren't paid.

[00:20:45] Speaker 03:
So how do you expect to get a benefit?

[00:20:48] Speaker 03:
But the district court didn't say, oh, look at this question.

[00:20:53] Speaker 03:
A person would look at this question and know that it didn't include the life insurance.

[00:21:00] Speaker 03:
There wasn't any the district court didn't say that Or offer that up as a rationale.

[00:21:07] Speaker 03:
I guess that's I Mean that is true.

[00:21:10] Speaker 01:
Isn't it all of that's true.

[00:21:12] Speaker 01:
Okay, that's all correct I the way I read the decision of the district court was that the judge went straight to the question of whether surcharge was an available remedy and basically took the position it doesn't matter whether or not there's a breach because

[00:21:29] Speaker 01:
surcharge.

[00:21:30] Speaker 02:
He didn't pay the premiums.

[00:21:33] Speaker 01:
Well, because he didn't pay the premiums that he didn't convert.

[00:21:35] Speaker 02:
This is where it falls off the track.

[00:21:37] Speaker 02:
It seems to be it falls off the track when you capsulize it that way.

[00:21:43] Speaker 02:
Then surcharge would be appropriate, but he didn't pay the premiums.

[00:21:46] Speaker 02:
Therefore, he loses.

[00:21:49] Speaker 02:
I mean, it's something wrong in that circle.

[00:21:56] Speaker 01:
Well, I mean, you're right.

[00:21:59] Speaker 01:
You're putting a lot of weight on the question of whether or not the participant, Mr. Watson, has any obligation to read his plan, has any obligation to understand.

[00:22:13] Speaker 01:
He certainly knew enough to say that benefits would be continued at the employee rate.

[00:22:20] Speaker 01:
And the severance agreement makes very clear there's two different categories of benefits.

[00:22:27] Speaker 01:
MetLife has its own paragraph.

[00:22:29] Speaker 01:
in the severance agreement, the life insurance is not included with the life and vision and dental.

[00:22:36] Speaker 01:
The life and vision and dental is the only thing that could have been continued at the employee rate, as was asked by Mr. Watson.

[00:22:43] Speaker 01:
Again, it's indisputable.

[00:22:45] Speaker 01:
There's no other way of reading it.

[00:22:47] Speaker 01:
This is what it says, and this is what he had in his possession.

[00:22:51] Speaker 01:
Well, counsel, are you

[00:22:56] Speaker 04:
I can't really tell if you're making an argument about whether there was a breach on the one hand, or whether the court appropriately balanced equitable considerations in coming to its ultimate decision.

[00:23:16] Speaker 04:
Because if we're just talking about the November 29 and November 30 email, and whether the November 30 email

[00:23:28] Speaker 04:
a discharge of fiduciary duty, that seems to go to the breach question.

[00:23:34] Speaker 04:
Am I correct on that?

[00:23:35] Speaker 04:
That's correct.

[00:23:36] Speaker 04:
But, and you spent a fair amount of pages in your brief saying that there was no breach, correct?

[00:23:44] Speaker 04:
That's right.

[00:23:45] Speaker 04:
Wouldn't that be an alternative ground to affirm given that the district court never said there?

[00:23:53] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:23:55] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:23:57] Speaker 04:
You never said it was an alternative grant to affirm, but I read it that way.

[00:24:02] Speaker 04:
Am I correct on that?

[00:24:03] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:24:04] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:24:05] Speaker 04:
But coming back to, I guess, a number of questions that have been posed by all three of us, once we get past the breach issue, that is, there was a breach, there wasn't a breach, but we're at the

[00:24:24] Speaker 04:
equitable remedy point, and the judge says, oh, no equitable remedy because you didn't pay your premiums.

[00:24:34] Speaker 04:
The judge is talking about a remedy that comes under a different provision of ERISA than the equitable relief.

[00:24:41] Speaker 04:
Why isn't that legal error?

[00:24:44] Speaker 01:
I don't think it's legal error because she's not, I don't agree with Mr. Cantor that

[00:24:52] Speaker 01:
the question would fall under 1132A1B instead of 1132A3.

[00:24:57] Speaker 01:
Their claim is breach, and that falls under A3.

[00:25:02] Speaker 01:
A claim for benefits, had they paid the premium and had they continued the policy, the chances are the claim wouldn't have been denied, and there wouldn't have been a claim at all other than the payment of the claim.

[00:25:15] Speaker 01:
But getting to the equitable nature of, I mean, we disagreed.

[00:25:20] Speaker 01:
with the determination of the district court that surcharge was even available.

[00:25:25] Speaker 01:
And we argued quite a bit in the district court that surcharge is not an appropriate remedy.

[00:25:32] Speaker 01:
And the court disagreed with us, but then found that the plaintiff was ineligible.

[00:25:41] Speaker 04:
And you're arguing that now.

[00:25:44] Speaker 01:
Well, I want to make sure I get this in.

[00:25:45] Speaker 01:
I have four minutes left.

[00:25:46] Speaker 01:
I think it's important.

[00:25:48] Speaker 01:
One of the cases that we cited, actually we cited it in a 28-J letter.

[00:25:53] Speaker 01:
It was a case from September of last year from the Fourth Circuit.

[00:25:57] Speaker 01:
And it would take more time than I have to go through the string of Supreme Court cases on this issue of what does the Supreme Court mean by equitable, starting with Mertens versus Hewitt and going all the way through to Montanile.

[00:26:12] Speaker 01:
So there are about seven cases.

[00:26:15] Speaker 01:
And the one thing that we know, I think,

[00:26:17] Speaker 01:
And the Rose Court, the Fourth Circuit, hit the nail on the head with this, I think, is that you're talking about a thing as opposed to just a claim against the general assets of who you're saying caused your injury.

[00:26:33] Speaker 01:
And so when you look at the Montanil decision, they did two things in Montanil, the Supreme Court, and the Rose Court acknowledged it.

[00:26:40] Speaker 01:
The first was something that the district court disagreed with us about, which was we said that when you're

[00:26:46] Speaker 01:
that in the AmeriCase, the Signer versus AmeriCase in the Supreme Court, when the judges, justices went through the potential other equitable remedies, that was dicta because it wasn't necessary to the decision, which was about whether or not you can enforce an SPD that's inconsistent with the plan.

[00:27:06] Speaker 01:
Court said no.

[00:27:08] Speaker 01:
And the second was whether or not you can reform a plan under 1132A1B, which is no.

[00:27:16] Speaker 01:
And then they said, well, if it goes back to the district court, we're going to remand it.

[00:27:20] Speaker 01:
These are some of the remedies that can be considered.

[00:27:24] Speaker 01:
And what we argued, and what Justice Scalia, in his dissent to O'Mara, was that this is all dicta.

[00:27:29] Speaker 01:
This is unnecessary to the holding.

[00:27:32] Speaker 01:
And the district judge disagreed with us about this.

[00:27:36] Speaker 01:
And in the Fourth Circuit's decision in Rose, what you see is the court points out that there's a footnote in the Montanile decision where the court

[00:27:46] Speaker 01:
disavows the whole discussion of A3 remedies in Montenegro in the footnote.

[00:27:53] Speaker 01:
It basically says it wasn't important to our decisions on the merits.

[00:27:59] Speaker 01:
So what the Fourth Circuit says, we made a mistake when Ameri came out and when they reversed in the McCravey versus MetLife case, another life insurance case.

[00:28:12] Speaker 01:
And they said, we're going to fix that now.

[00:28:16] Speaker 02:
Excuse me, you're aware that in the 10th Circuit, we consider ourselves bound by Supreme Court dictum, almost as firmly as by the Court's outlier holdings.

[00:28:30] Speaker 02:
Now, I don't know if the Fourth Circuit follows that same rule.

[00:28:35] Speaker 01:
How do you get around that?

[00:28:37] Speaker 01:
What I would say is that the Supreme Court clarified that in the Montanile decision.

[00:28:43] Speaker 01:
and basically stated that the discussion of A3 remedies wasn't material to the holdings that it came to in the case.

[00:28:54] Speaker 01:
The only reason I'm mentioning the Fourth Circuit, which I recognize is only persuasive, it's not binding on this court, but it's A, a recent decision from September of last year.

[00:29:04] Speaker 01:
B, it concerns a case that the appellant relied on, the McCravey versus MetLife case.

[00:29:11] Speaker 01:
which was abrogated by the Rose decision.

[00:29:14] Speaker 01:
And it explains why, A, Amara doesn't require surcharge to be paid or even hold it as a available remedy.

[00:29:26] Speaker 01:
It was just sort of dicta in that case.

[00:29:29] Speaker 01:
That's the first thing that we get out of Montanil and the Rose case.

[00:29:32] Speaker 01:
And the second is a great discussion of

[00:29:37] Speaker 01:
What's the difference between equitable relief and legal relief?

[00:29:41] Speaker 01:
And what the Rose Court?

[00:29:43] Speaker 01:
Equitable and legal relief.

[00:29:45] Speaker 01:
Because going all the way back to the Mertens decision, the Supreme Court talked about how just money damages is the quintessential form of legal relief.

[00:29:54] Speaker 01:
It's unavailable under 1132A3.

[00:29:58] Speaker 01:
But in the Rose case, that's exactly what they wanted.

[00:30:03] Speaker 01:
In that case, it was very sad.

[00:30:07] Speaker 01:
a pediatric patient who had his claim denied for surgery.

[00:30:11] Speaker 01:
And by the time it was reversed on appeal, he had passed away very sad.

[00:30:14] Speaker 01:
And it was denied, denied, denied.

[00:30:17] Speaker 01:
And then it was overruled.

[00:30:19] Speaker 01:
But then the court found that they sued to get the money that it would have cost in benefits to pay for the surgery, which had been denied.

[00:30:27] Speaker 01:
And the court said, no, we can't do that because it's not available under A3.

[00:30:32] Speaker 04:
Council, do you want to make a concluding?

[00:30:34] Speaker 01:
I know.

[00:30:34] Speaker 01:
I just saw that my time is up, and I apologize for that.

[00:30:37] Speaker 01:
No problem.

[00:30:38] Speaker 01:
Do you want to make a concluding statement?

[00:30:40] Speaker 01:
You read our papers, I'm sure.

[00:30:43] Speaker 01:
And we would just say that at the end of your consideration that you went through an order affirming the district court's opinion.

[00:30:51] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:30:51] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Council.

[00:30:52] Speaker 04:
Thanks to both of you.

[00:30:53] Speaker 04:
Appreciate the arguments this morning.

[00:30:55] Speaker 04:
The case will be submitted, and Council are excused.

[00:30:58] Speaker ?:
Thank you.