Opinion ID: 1967327
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Recovery of Benefits Due Under the Terms of the Keogh Plan

Text: Plaintiff alleged that she was entitled to benefits under the terms of the Keogh Plan based on her interpretation of the Plan terms as requiring mandatory contributions on behalf of participating employees, regardless of whether any actual contributions were made by the employer. Defendant Brannen disputed plaintiff's interpretation of the Plan terms, and argued that since no contributions were made by him to the Keogh Plan during the period of plaintiff's eligible employment, and because contributions on behalf of employees were optional when no contributions are made for the benefit of an owner-employee, plaintiff was not entitled to any benefits on termination of her employment. The trial court agreed with plaintiff's interpretation of the Plan terms, and awarded plaintiff benefits due her under the Keogh Plan for the period of her eligible employment under that Plan. This claim clearly falls within the scope of state court jurisdiction under § 1132(a)(1)(B), as it is an action wherein the participant or beneficiary asks the Court, as in a typical contract action, to construe or apply the terms of the plan to the facts of his/her particular issue. Young v. Sheet Metal Workers, 112 Misc.2d at 701, 447 N.Y.S.2d at 803. In order to find that a participant is entitled to benefits under the Keogh Plan, all the court is required to do is interpret the terms of the Plan; it need go no further. Such a claim clearly arises under the terms of the plan, and is therefore within the concurrent jurisdiction of state courts under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). See, e.g., Farrow v. Montgomery Ward Long Term Disability Plan, 176 Cal.App.3d 648, 657, 222 Cal.Rptr. 325, 330 (1986); Lavergne v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund, 494 A.2d 1185, 1186 n. 1 (R.I.1985); Evans v. W.E.A. Insurance Trust, 122 Wis.2d 1, 4-5, 361 N.W.2d 630, 631 (1985).