When people think about an ERISA case, they often picture one thing: an insurance company or plan administrator denying benefits. That is a common scenario, but it is not the only one.
Some ERISA disputes involve something broader — fiduciary breach. In general terms, that means a person or entity with legal responsibilities to a benefit plan may have mishandled plan administration, acted with a conflict, made misleading statements, engaged in self-dealing, or otherwise failed to act in the interests of participants and beneficiaries. Under ERISA’s fiduciary-duty provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1104, fiduciaries are generally expected to act prudently and loyally. Under 29 U.S.C. § 1106, certain conflicted transactions are prohibited. The U.S. Department of Labor also explains that fiduciaries may be personally liable for losses to a plan and can face court action, including removal, when they breach those obligations (DOL overview; DOL fiduciary responsibilities).
That distinction matters because a case framed only as “they denied my claim” may overlook a larger pattern. In some situations, the issue is not just the denial itself. The issue may be how the plan was managed, who was making decisions, whether conflicts were driving outcomes, and whether participants were misled along the way.
If you want a broader overview of what these duties look like in practice, it may help to start with this explanation of plan mismanagement, conflicts, and benefit administration failures under ERISA.
In this post you’ll learn:
<aside> 💡 Scroll to the bottom for every post in this series.
</aside>
A fiduciary breach claim is an allegation that someone acting as an ERISA fiduciary failed to meet duties imposed by federal law.
ERISA does not label everyone connected to a plan as a fiduciary. In broad terms, fiduciary status often turns on discretion and control. The Department of Labor explains that fiduciaries generally include people or entities who exercise discretionary authority over plan management, plan assets, or plan administration (DOL fiduciary overview). The same general concept appears in ERISA’s statutory framework and in litigation over who was actually acting in a fiduciary capacity at the time of the challenged conduct.
That last point is important. A company can wear different hats. Some actions are taken as a business sponsor designing or changing a plan, while other actions are taken as a fiduciary administering it. The Supreme Court has recognized that not every employer decision is fiduciary conduct; some plan design choices are “settlor” functions rather than fiduciary acts (Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson). In practical terms, many ERISA cases turn on that threshold question: who was acting, in what role, and during which decision?
A denial-of-benefits claim usually focuses on a narrower issue: whether a participant was wrongly denied benefits allegedly due under the terms of the plan.
A fiduciary breach claim can be wider. It may involve allegations that the people running the plan: