July 25, 2014

ERISA Does Not Preempt State Court Order Requiring Beneficiary to Renounce Right to Employee’s Plan Benefits, Fourth Circuit Rules.

The scenario is not difficult to imagine:  An employee designates her spouse as the primary beneficiary under her employer’s life insurance and retirement benefit plans.  Years later, the couple divorces, and in the marital  settlement agreement, the ex-spouse waives his right to the employee’s life insurance and retirement benefits.   However, the employee forgets to change the beneficiary designation on her employer’s form. The employee then dies.

Under ERISA, the plan administrator must distribute the proceeds under the terms of beneficiary designation form.  Unless the marital settlement agreement qualifies as a QDRO, it does not enter the picture.   Consequently, in this scenario, the plan administrator must distribute the benefits to the ex-spouse as the named beneficiary.  Kennedy v. DuPont Savings and Investment Plan, 555 U.S. 285, 129 S. Ct. 865 (2009). 

However, this outcome does not prevent the employee’s estate from seeking the proceeds from the ex-spouse.  This was the scenario in Adrochick v. Byrd, slip opinion 12-1728 (March 4, 2013), in which the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that it was answering a question left open by the Supreme Court in the Kennedy decision.  In Adrochick, the employee’s estate sought an injunction in state court, asking the Court to find the ex-spouse in contempt of the marital settlement agreement and ordering him to renounce his rights to the life insurance and retirement benefits under the employee benefit plan.  Meanwhile, the ex-spouse filed an action in federal court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the plan administrator must distribute the plan benefits to him, under Kennedy.   The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that, while the plan administrator would be required to adhere to the beneficiary designation, the employee’s estate could enforce the marital settlement agreement in state court against the ex-spouse.  Adnochick v. Byrd, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 65903 (E.D. Va. 2012).  The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court, finding that the state court’s injunction affected the parties’ rights post-distribution, even if the court entered the injunction prior to the plan’s distribution.  In this way, the state court’s order did not interfere with ERISA’s goals in efficient plan administration recognized by the Supreme Court in Kennedy, the Court held.  

The lesson:  An estate can sue the employee benefit plan beneficiary before the plan distribution is made, putting in place the threat of a court’s contempt powers by the time the distribution is made. 

Copyright © 2014 Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Katherine Thompson Lange, Labor Employment Attorney, Womble Carlyle Law Firm

Kathy’s practice has focused almost exclusively in the area of ERISA employee benefit plan litigation for over fifteen years. She has represented plans, plan administrators and plan fiduciaries in hundreds of lawsuits involving a variety of employee benefit plan issues, including benefit entitlement, COBRA compliance and statutory compliance.  Kathy has represented clients in a wide range of industries, including insurance, health care, financial and manufacturing. 


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.