Many ERISA disputes start the same way: a benefits claim gets denied, the appeal feels stacked against the participant, and the conversation quickly narrows to whether the denial itself was “right” or “wrong.” But in some cases, the larger issue is not just the denial. It may be how the plan was administered, whether conflicts affected decision-making, whether disclosures were misleading, or whether fiduciaries failed to monitor the plan at all.
That distinction matters. ERISA imposes fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence on people who exercise discretionary authority over plan management or administration, and federal law provides separate avenues for relief when those duties are breached, beyond a simple claim for benefits under the plan terms. The U.S. Department of Labor describes fiduciaries as people with discretionary control over plan management, plan assets, or plan administration, and notes that courts may take action against fiduciaries who breach those duties. The Department also explains that ERISA’s fiduciary rules are designed to protect participants and beneficiaries. The Supreme Court has likewise recognized ongoing fiduciary duties, including a continuing duty to monitor plan investments in retirement-plan cases. See Tibble v. Edison International and Hughes v. Northwestern University.
In this post you’ll learn six common mistakes that can cause claimants to overlook broader ERISA fiduciary-breach theories, why those mistakes happen, and what facts often signal that a case may involve more than a one-time denial. If you want broader background on how plan mismanagement, conflicts, and administrative failures fit into ERISA’s fiduciary framework, it may help to start with this overview of how fiduciary duty issues can arise in plan administration.
<aside> 💡 Scroll to the bottom for every post in this series.
</aside>
ERISA benefit disputes often get framed as contract-style disagreements: the participant asks for benefits, the plan says no, and the fight becomes whether the plan terms support payment. That is one type of ERISA case. But it is not the only type.
Under ERISA, fiduciaries generally are expected to act solely in the interest of participants and beneficiaries and with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence of a prudent person familiar with such matters. The statute’s civil-enforcement scheme also allows different kinds of claims, including claims for benefits and claims seeking relief for fiduciary misconduct. You can see the basic enforcement structure in 29 U.S.C. § 1132, and the fiduciary-duty provisions in 29 U.S.C. § 1104 and 29 U.S.C. § 1109.
That means a denied claim may sometimes be evidence of a broader administration problem, not just an isolated bad call. For example:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Varity Corp. v. Howe is a well-known example showing that misleading participants while acting in a fiduciary capacity can support fiduciary-breach relief under ERISA. In the retirement-plan context, LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates recognized that fiduciary-breach claims can reach losses affecting an individual participant’s defined-contribution account, rather than only losses to an entire plan.
With that backdrop, here are six mistakes that often cause claimants to miss the broader claim.
The first mistake is assuming that if benefits were denied, the only possible case is a wrongful-denial case.
That framing is common because the denial letter is usually the first formal event in the dispute. It feels concrete. It names a plan provision. It gives an appeal deadline. It often becomes the center of gravity.