Could listing designated beneficiaries on a participant statement spark a fiduciary breach lawsuit? In today\u2019s world, the answer is always yes \u2014 and in LeBoeuf v. Entergy, it did.<\/p>\n
This case involved Alvin Martinez, a longtime Entergy employee who remarried but never updated his 401(k) beneficiary form. Despite receiving quarterly statements listing his children as beneficiaries, the plan correctly distributed his $3 million account to his second wife after his death, per ERISA rules (no spousal waiver = spouse gets it).<\/p>\n
The children sued, arguing the statements were misleading. The district court dismissed it. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Why? Because:<\/p>\n
\u00b7 Plan documents and SPDs clearly said remarriage voids prior beneficiary designations;<\/p>\n
\u00b7 No one inquired about the rule \u2014 and fiduciaries aren\u2019t liable for participant confusion absent a question;<\/p>\n
\u00b7 Entergy and T. Rowe Price weren\u2019t acting as fiduciaries in just issuing statements.<\/p>\n
Bottom line: Printing a name on a statement isn\u2019t a fiduciary act. But it still took years of litigation to prove that.<\/p>\n
Let this be a reminder: Participants need to know the rules \u2014 and update their forms. Spouses matter. Waivers matter. And if you\u2019re a plan fiduciary, disclosure matters most of all.<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Could listing designated beneficiaries on a participant statement spark a fiduciary breach lawsuit? In today\u2019s world, the answer is always yes \u2014 and in LeBoeuf v. Entergy, it did. This case involved Alvin Martinez, a longtime Entergy employee who remarried … Continue reading