Document: 547 U.S. 356 (2006) SEREBOFF et ux. v. MID ATLANTIC MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. No. 05-260. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 28, 2006. Decided May 15, *358 Peter K. Stris argued the cause for petitioners. With him on briefs were Radha A. Pathak, John C. Stein, Shaun P. Martin, William Delgado, and Jason H. Wilson. Gregory S. Coleman respondent. brief Thomas F. Fitzgerald Hanrahan. James Feldman States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. Solicitor General Clement, Deputy Kneedler, Howard M. Radzely, Nathaniel I. Spiller, Edward D. Sieger.[*] *359 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered opinion Court. In this case we consider again circumstances in which a fiduciary under Employee Retirement Income Security Act 1974 (ERISA) may sue beneficiary reimbursement medical expenses paid by ERISA plan, when has recovered its injuries from third party. I Marlene Sereboff's employer sponsors health insurance plan administered respondent Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., covered ERISA, 88 Stat. 829, amended, 29 § 1001 seq. (2000 ed. Supp. III). Sereboff her husband Joel are beneficiaries plan. The provides payment certain contains an "Acts Third Parties" provision. This provision "applies [a is] sick or injured result act omission another person party," requires who "receives benefits" such to "reimburse [Mid Atlantic]" those benefits "[a]ll recoveries party (whether lawsuit, settlement, otherwise)." App. Pet. Cert. 38a. states that "[Mid Atlantic's] share recovery will not be reduced because [the beneficiary] received full damages claimed, unless Atlantic] agrees writing reduction." Ibid. *360 Sereboffs involved automobile accident California suffered injuries. Pursuant plan's coverage provisions, couple's expenses. filed tort action state court against several parties, seeking compensatory accident. Soon after suit was commenced, sent Sereboffs' attorney letter asserting lien anticipated proceeds suit, behalf. 87-90. On occasions over next two years, similar correspondence Sereboffs, repeating claim portion recovery, detailing they accrued eventually settled $750,000. Neither nor their any money satisfaction claimed which, completed payments behalf, totaled $74,869.37. District 502(a)(3) 1132(a)(3), collect it had Since already distributed settlement them, sought temporary restraining order preliminary injunction requiring couple retain set aside at least $74,869.37 proceeds. approved stipulation agreed "preserve funds" investment account, "until [District] rules merits all appeals, if any, exhausted." 69. merits, found Atlantic's favor ordered pay $74,869.37, plus interest, with deduction attorney's fees costs incurred court. See 303 2d 691, 316 *361 265 (Md. 2004). appealed Fourth Circuit affirmed relevant part. 407 F.3d 212 (2005). observed Courts Appeals divided question whether authorizes these circumstances. id., 219-220, n. 7.[1] We granted certiorari resolve disagreement. 546 1030 II A bring civil "(A) enjoin practice violates subchapter terms (B) obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) redress violations (ii) enforce provisions plan." 1132(a)(3). There is no dispute "enforce . of" only requested "equitable" 502(a)(3)(B). first time have occasion clarify scope remedial power conferred district courts Mertens Hewitt Associates, 508 248 (1993), construed authorize "those categories typically available equity," thus rejected "nothing than damages." Id., 256, 255. elaborated construction 502(a)(3)(B) *362 Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. Knudson, 534 204 (2002), facts case. Much like Knudson reserved "`a upon judgment otherwise,' receives [a] party." 207. After car accident, bills behalf and, she injuries, paid. 207-209. response argument Great-West's "restitution" Mertens, noted "not falling rubric restitution [was] equity." U.S., 212. To decide restitutionary legal, examined cases secondary legal materials determine would been "[i]n days bench." explained one feature impose constructive trust "particular funds property defendant's possession." 213. That requirement met "the petitioners claim[ed] entitlement" Knudson's possession, but instead placed "Special Needs Trust" law. 214, kind sought, therefore, equitablethe imposition particular propertybut legalthe personal liability [Great-West] [Knudson]." 214. accordingly determined could proceed 502(a)(3). impediment characterizing present here. As below, "specifically *363 identifiable" "within possession control Sereboffs"that due "preserved [in Sereboffs'] accounts." F.3d, 218. Unlike Great-West, did simply seek "to contractual obligation money." U. S., 210. It alleged breach contract money, sure, through specifically identified fund, assets generally, remedies terms, so fact involves can hardly enough prove equitable; make 502(a)(3)(B)(ii) empty promise. reject out hand recover fund defendant. does. B While does falter nature seeks, must still establish basis equitable. 213 remedy "is depends `the plaintiff's] claim' underlying sought"). Our law bench confirms Barnes Alexander, 232 117 (1914), instance, attorneys Street Alexander performed work Barnes, attorney, promised them "one-third contingent fee" he expected 119. upholding fee, Justice Holmes recited familiar rul[e] equity convey specific object even before acquired contractor *364 trustee soon gets title thing." 121. rule, concluded Barnes' undertaking "create[d] lien" monetary client, ibid., "follow into hands Barnes," "as fund] identified," 123. promise distinct general assets"[a]ll otherwise)"and entitled"that total paid." Like rely "familiar equity" supra, rule allowed "follow" "into [Sereboffs'] hands" lien. satisfied conditions "equitable restitution" common law, particularly "strict tracing rules" allegedly accompanied form relief. Reply Brief Petitioners 8. When imposed relief, often asset belonging plaintiff improperly defendant exchanged property. central circumstances, argue, plaintiff's ability "`trac[e]' products substitutes," "trace his some assets." 1 Dobbs, Law Remedies 4.3(2), pp. 591, 10, 592 (2d 1993). But themselves recognize, matter restitution, *365 "by agreement," sort issue different species 24-25; 11; see also 4.3(3), 601; G. Palmer, Restitution 1.5, p. 20 (1978). asserted applies liens agreement assignment: plaintiffs identify originally possessed, converted held, yet preclude securing extent proper inability satisfy consequence. concede much, stating "do contendand never suggestedthat historically required agreement." 11. Their "predicated theory restitution." appear assume endorsed application conditionsincluding rulesto every assumption inaccurate. described might need catalog equity; right unavailable possession. argue that, fiduciaries relying here, *366 "no third-party recovery" exists "place beyond grant fiduciary] complete therein." 26, 25 (internal quotation marks omitted). true cases, identification made specified attached. See, e. g., Trist Child, 21 Wall. 441, 447 (1875) ("[A] mere sufficient. Something more necessary. appropriation pro tanto"). explicitly disapproved observing addressed dicta (since containing illegal), treating "question large," light earlier opinions dealt head on. 120 (citing Trist, supra; Christmas Russell, 14 69 (1872); Wright Ellison, 16 (1864)). Apart discredited, offer little undermine plain indication existence executed. 4 Symons, Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence 1236, 699-700 (5th 1941) ("[A]n charge, assign existence," although "creat[ing] estate interest things afterwards come constitute property" just "a existing owned contracting date contract"); Peugh Porter, 112 737, 742 (1885) ("[I]n contemplation equity, [it] material" "very now dispute" existence" created). Indeed, most muster regard predating single decision rests, contrary characterization, *367 simple conclusion purporting secure properly do so. 26; 12; Taylor Wharton, 43 Ohio 104 (1915). finally fall back announced special claiming contingency fee arrangement. Outside context, say, "typical regarding assignment" persisted prevented 13. attach significance identity parties recovery. And itself makes clear, Courtnot involving feesapply same Walker Brown, 165 654 (1897), municipal bonds transferred company facilitate business. supplier suspended shipments delinquent debts, individual assured "`any indebtedness owing you time, shall return me risk business company], far [it].'" 663. created bonds, returned became insolvent. 666. resolved applying principles, "[t]o dedicate purpose, provide creditor alone authorized debt *368 value, unmistakably create lien." C Shifting gears, contend lower erred allowing enforcement provision, without imposing various limitations say apply "truly grounded principles subrogation." 5. According subrogation able assert defenses, defense pursued victim whole 5-6. Such defenses should action, claim, despite considered claim. explained, qualifies indistinguishable established agreement, epitomized our Barnes. 23.18(d), 470 (A express based impressed moneys ground ought go insurer"). characterize freestanding subrogation. Accordingly, parcel accompany beside point.[2] *369 * Under teaching relief" 502(a)(3); ordered. NOTES [*] Jeffrey Robert White Kenneth Suggs Association Trial Lawyers America reversal. Briefs amici affirmance America's Health Insurance Plans, al. Waldemar J. Pflepsen, Jr., Stephanie W. Kanwit, Stephen Goldberg, Jan Amundson, Quentin Riegel; Blue Cross Shield Anthony Shelley, Alan Horowitz, Laura Ferguson; Central States, Southeast Southwest Areas Welfare Fund Nellis, Nyhan, Condon; National Subrogation Professionals Kolb, Daran Kiefer, Lawrence III; Coordinating Committee Multiemployer Plans Donald Capuano R. Richard Hopp; Carpenters Trust Desmond Lee; Self-Insurance Institute America, E. Barry, Brunner, Mirel, Bryan B. Davenport, George Pantos; Society Human Resource Management Térese Connerton, Bokat, Robin Conrad, Ellen Dunham Bryant. [1] Compare Administrative Comm. Wal-Mart Assoc. Plan Willard, 393 1119 (CA10 2004), Bombardier Aerospace Benefits Ferrer, Poirot Wansbrough, 354 348 (CA5 2003), Stores, Inc. Varco, 338 680 (CA7 Qualchoice, Rowland, 367 638 (CA6 Westaff (USA) Arce, 298 1164 (CA9 2002). [2] 502(a)(3), "appropriate" contravened make-whole doctrine. apart contention "equitable," examination record raised assertion below. decline Collegiate Athletic Assn. Smith, 525 459, (1999).

Category: 7