recognizing “constructive fraud” as an element of equitable estoppel, embodying the requirement that a defendant be “aware of the true facts” when making'a: misrepresentation
How later courts described this case
- recognizing “constructive fraud” as an element of equitable estoppel, embodying the requirement that a defendant be “aware of the true facts” when making'a: misrepresentation
- recognizing that a federal common law equitable estoppel claim can be brought against a pension plan based upon participants’ reliance on a retirement benefit statement
- holding that the doctrine of estoppel, in “appropriate circumstances,” can justify a narrow departure from “the plan documents”
- recognizing a federal common law claim for equitable estoppel
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Haviland v. Metropolitan Life Insurance, 876 F. Supp. 2d 946 (2012)
Thus, Bloemker is distinguishable.
The opinion
ROBERT HOLMES BELL, District Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with the desirability of a rule that permits an equitable estoppel claim to vary ERISA pension plan provisions which, although unambiguous, do not allow for individual calculation of benefits. Nevertheless, it appears that any rule that permits an equitable estoppel claim to vary ERISA pension plan provisions that are unambiguous conflicts with the rule announced in Sprague v. General Motors Co., 133 F.3d 388 (6th Cir.1998) (en banc), that estoppel cannot be applied to vary the terms of unambiguous provisions. Id. at 404 . Accordingly, until Sprague is over *445 turned by an en banc panel of this Court or the United States Supreme Court, I believe we are required to affirm the dismissal of Bloemker’s equitable estoppel claim. United States v. Simpson, 520 F.3d 531, 540-41 (6th Cir.2008) (quoting Darrah v. City of Oak Park, 255 F.3d 301, 309 (6th Cir.2001)); 6th Cir. R. 206(c).