How to Avoid Costly Beneficiary Designation Litigation – Helpful Hints for All Benefit Plans

10 April 2017 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

When administering an employee benefits plan, it is critically important to provide clear and specific instructions as to how a participant can designate a beneficiary. A recent federal district court opinion in Florida demonstrates the potential pitfalls that plan administrators may face with respect to disputes over beneficiary status and provides guidance as to how administrators may avoid costly disputes.

That case, Ruiz v. Publix Super Markets, Inc. centered around the beneficiary designations made by the now-deceased Iraleth Rizo, a long-time employee of the Publix supermarket chain.

During her employment, Ms. Rizo participated in the company’s employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) and 401(k) plan. Both plans’ summary plan descriptions (SPD) provided very specific instructions as to how a participant designates a beneficiary:

It is important to remember to change your beneficiary designation when the situation calls for it. . . . If you wish to change your beneficiary(ies), please obtain a Beneficiary Designation Card from your work location’s Publix Communication Center and complete, sign and submit it to the Retirement Department, Publix Corporate Office, Lakeland, Florida. Your change of beneficiary designation is not valid under the Plan until the Retirement Department receives and  processes the properly completed Beneficiary Designation Card.

The SPD also provided these instructions:

Remember that a Beneficiary Designation Card is a legal document. It should not contain mark outs, erasures or correction fluid.  It should be typed or printed in ink, and you must sign and date the card.  Your beneficiary designation is not valid under the Plan until the Retirement Department receives and process the properly completed Beneficiary Designation Card.

In October 2008, Ms. Rizo properly named her niece and nephew as her beneficiaries for both the ESOP and the 401(k) Plan. By 2011, however, Ms. Rizo had been diagnosed with cancer and no longer worked for the company.  On January 15 of that year,  she called the employer and asked about how she could update her beneficiary designations.  The company’s representative instructed her that because she was not an active employee, she could write a letter to update her beneficiary designation.  The representative further directed Ms. Rizo that in the letter she must state her name, her Social Security number, the name(s) of her new beneficiary(ies), and their Social Security numbers.  Alternatively, Ms. Rizo was told that if she could obtain them, she could submit new completed Beneficiary Designation Cards.

Following these oral instructions, Ms. Rizo submitted a dated and signed letter including all of the required information and naming her good friend, Arlene Ruiz, as her sole beneficiary. However, she also submitted new Beneficiary Designation Cards.  But, instead of  dating and signing the cards, she simply wrote “As stated in letter.”  Unfortunately, Ms. Rizo died the day after the letter and cards were mailed to Publix.

The Plans paid both death benefits to Ms. Rizo’s niece and nephew, in accord with the original 2008 designations. When the friend, Ms. Ruiz filed a claim for the death benefits, the Plans denied the claim because properly completed Beneficiary Designation Cards had not been filed naming her as the sole beneficiary.  The denial referenced the SPDs’ specific language about the requirements of how to make a proper beneficiary designation, including the requirement that the card be signed by the participant.  Ms. Ruiz sued the Plan, claiming that the letter identifying her as the beneficiary was sufficient to entitle her to the death benefits.

In a decision that is a boon to plan administrators, the court rejected Ms. Ruiz’s claim, and concluded that the niece and nephew were the correct beneficiaries. In ruling against Ms. Ruiz, the court based its decision on a 2009 United States  Supreme Court case, Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings and Investment Plan. In that case, as part of an executed divorce settlement, a plan participant’s former spouse agreed to give up her claim to death benefits.  However, the participant never updated his beneficiary designation.  Accordingly, when he died several years later, the plan paid death benefits to the ex-wife, not to his estate.  In finding in favor of the plan, the Supreme Court instructed that one of the purposes of The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA),  with respect to a written plan document is to inform employees of their rights and obligations under the plan.  When there is a beneficiary dispute, the plan’s written terms must be followed, to save the plan and its sponsor from costly litigation, avoid double liability, eliminate the need to examine and evaluate extrinsic documents to discern an employee’s intent, and to make sure that benefits are paid quickly.

Using the Supreme Court opinion as a guide, the recent Ruiz opinion thus concluded that it does not matter if a participant “substantially complies” with designation procedures.  Instead, a designation will not be changed unless the plan’s specific requirements are precisely followed.

The Publix Plans dodged a bullet with this decision. The case may have been less clear-cut if Ms. Rizo had not included the incomplete Beneficiary Designation Cards along with her letter.  Since the letter indeed complied with all of the Publix representative’s directions, it certainly would have been a closer call.

But this risk could have been eliminated entirely, if: (a) the SPDs included the letter procedure for former employees; or (b) the representative simply repeated the SPDs’ instructions as to completing the Beneficiary Designation Cards, and not offered the letter procedure.

To avoid costly litigation, employers should review the beneficiary designation language in their plan documents, SPDs, online discussions, and any other employee communications about their plans. As this case highlights, having specific and consistent directions on how to change a beneficiary designation is helpful.  More importantly, it is critical that those who administer the plan follow the plan’s written terms.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services