Opinion ID: 172426
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: District Court's Grant of Summary JudgmentCount One

Text: In their fourth issue on appeal, plaintiffs contend the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants with respect to the breach of fiduciary duty claim and the equitable estoppel claim contained within Count One of the second amended complaint. According to plaintiffs, when Kerber and Phelps retired and chose the structure of benefits to be received for themselves and their spouses, they specifically and detrimentally relied upon representations and assurances about the Pensioner Death Benefit. Id. at 49. Further, plaintiffs assert [t]here was no notice given to ... Kerber and Phelps that any benefits, including the [Pensioner Death Benefit], could be reduced or eliminated. Id. at 50. In particular, plaintiffs assert that the SPDs provided to Kerber and Phelps at the time of their retirement did not disclose any reserved right to change, reduce or eliminate any benefits, including the Pensioner Death Benefit. Id. Plaintiffs argue that the District Court failed to factor the SPD's role in influencing the retirement decisions made by ... Kerber and Phelps. Id. at 50. Further, plaintiffs argue that these facts cry out for application of the principles of equitable estoppel, compelling a judicial determination that Plan sponsor Qwest should be estopped from reducing or eliminating the [Pensioner Death Benefit] promised to Kerber and Phelps. Id. at 51. Plaintiffs' arguments lack merit for several reasons. First, it is uncontroverted that plaintiffs Kerber and Phelps retired in 1990, over thirteen years prior to the implementation of Amendment 2003-5. Further, by its express terms, Amendment 2003-5 has no impact on these two plaintiffs. Thus, neither of these plaintiffs can establish that they relied to their detriment upon any representations of defendants regarding the Pensioner Death Benefit. Moreover, according to the Supreme Court's decision in Hughes Aircraft, defendants cannot be deemed to have been acting as fiduciaries when they altered the Plan via Amendment 2003-5. 525 U.S. at 443, 119 S.Ct. 755. Thus, it is unclear what basis could exist to support the plaintiffs' purported breach of fiduciary claim.