Opinion ID: 2522
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Kendall's Appeal

Text: Kendall appeals to this Court with respect to all claims except V and VI. Kendall contests she has standing to bring her claims because: (1) 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) confers standing to bring claims of ERISA violations regardless of whether she was personally injured; or, alternatively, (2) she was directly injured by the ERISA violations because once the terms of the Plan are brought into compliance with ERISA, the amount of her pension will be higher. Exactly how much higher will be known only after reformation of the Plan. Kendall also alleges a specific calculable injury with regard to Claims VII, VIII, and IX, claiming that the AFC used to calculate her benefits would have been higher had the Plan conformed to governing regulations. However, Kendall only provides specific calculations of her injury under section 1.10(d) of the 1994 Plan, which applies only to Plan participants who qualify for disability benefits. Kendall did not claim injury under this provision or provide this calculation before the district court. With regard to Claim I, Kendall argues that the Rule of 85 is an accrued benefit under this Court's case law and therefore must be taken into account when considering whether the Plan violates § 1054(b)(1)(B)'s second requirement. With regard to Claim IV, Kendall contends that the Rule of 85 benefit is greater than any accrued benefit at normal retirement age because the Court should measure each accrued benefit based on absolute amounts and not hypothetical actuarial values. [9] With regard to Claims II, III, VII, VIII, and IX, Kendall asserts the same basic arguments raised in her complaint except the addition, in Claim VII  relating to Claims VIII and IX  of an allegation that Section 1.10(d)'s method of annualizing Kendall's disability benefits also violates ERISA. [10]