# Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, a Pension Trust v. Gerber Truck Service, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · March 17, 1989 · 870 F.2d 1148

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9478849

## Case

- **Full name:** CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND, a Pension Trust, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GERBER TRUCK SERVICE, INC., Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- **Decided:** March 17, 1989
- **Citations:** 870 F.2d 1148; 10 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2265; 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 20591; 1989 WL 28750
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kanne
- **Judges:** Bauer, Cummings, Wood, Cudahy, Posner, Coffey, Flaum, Easterbrook, Ripple, Manion, Kanne
- **Cited by:** 270 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9478849

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “[i]f the employer simply points to a defect in its [the collective bargaining agreement’s] formation ... it [the employer] must still keep its promise to the pension plans.”
- rejecting as against multiemployer plan, defense that employer and union had oral understanding that employer need not make contributions on behalf of all employees covered by contribution obligation set forth in collective bargaining agreement
- observing that § 515 was designed to preclude only "complex litigation concerning claims and defenses unrelated to the employer's promise and the plans' entitlement to the contributions" (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted)
- recognizing that ERISA does not make the obligation to contribute to a pension plan depend on the existence of a valid collective bargaining agreement

## Opinion text

KANNE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I am of the view that Judge Cudahy had it right in his opinion writing for the original panel, 854 F.2d 1074 (7th Cir.1988). I therefore concur with the majority en banc opinion insofar as it assesses liability against Gerber for the “Fat’s Three” and dissent as to the broader liability which may be imposed for additional Gerber employees without the opportunity for an equitable exception.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9478849. Public record. Not legal advice.