Opinion ID: 3029993
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claims for Breaches of Fiduciary Duties

Text: Koert also claims that she is entitled to recover for breaches of fiduciary duties pursuant to ERISA §§ 404(a)(1)(A), 502(a)(3), 409, and 503. ERISA expressly provides a limitation period for claims of breach of fiduciary duty. Under 29 U.S.C. § 1113, a claimant must bring a claim for breach of fiduciary duty by the earlier of (a) six years from the date of breach or violation, or (b) three years “after the earliest date on which the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the breach or violation.” The District Court determined, upon reconsideration, that the three-year limitation period started running on the date that Koert’s benefits ended and consequently elapsed.1 We agree. A plaintiff has actual knowledge of the breach or violation when that plaintiff has actual knowledge of all material facts necessary to understand that some claim exists. Montrose Med. Group v. Bulgar, 243 F.3d 773, 787 (3d Cir. 2001); Gluck, 960 F.2d at 1177. Moreover, the plaintiff must be aware that an actual claim under ERISA exists. Montrose, 243 F.3d at 773. We do not, however, require that the plaintiff meet with a lawyer or 1 Koert argues that because GE first argued that the breach of fiduciary duty claims were time-barred in its motion for reconsideration, the District Court was wrong to entertain the argument. The decision of whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is within the discretion of the District Court. See Le v. Univ. of Pa., 321 F.3d 403, 405-06 (3d Cir. 2003). The District Court acted within its discretion in considering what was a legally correct argument. 6 otherwise develop a comprehensive understanding of his or her rights under ERISA before the three-year limitation period can begin to run. See id. (quoting Gluck, 960 F.2d at 1177). Koert alleges breaches of fiduciary duties based on the wrongful denial of her claim, as well as the manner in which she was notified of the denial. We readily conclude that Koert became aware of these facts at the time she was notified that her claim had been denied. When a fiduciary makes an outright repudiation of its obligation to pay its beneficiary, as GE did in this case, “it is reasonable to expect that the statute of limitations began to run at that point.” Henglein v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 260 F.3d 201, 214 (3d Cir. 2001). Finally, Koert’s actual knowledge of her ability to file a claim is established conclusively by her statement in May 2001 that “I do not wish to file any lawsuit . . .. ” As such, the three-year period has run and Koert’s claims are time-barred.