Synergy Blog

From Roger Baron: “unclean hands” is equitable defense to claim under ERISA § 1132(a)(3) according to Oregon Federal Court

Reprinted with Permission of Roger Baron

In Ayers v. LINA, No. 6:08-cv-06287-AA, (D.Or. April 19, 2012), the court was adjudicating a dispute over LTD benefits under ERISA coverage.  The plaintiff sued alleging wrongful denial and the ERISA insurer counterclaimed for an alleged overpayment of $99,885.  This court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on coverage and then addressed whether the equitable defense of “unclean hands” is available as a defense to an action brought under ERISA § 1132(a)(3).  The court rejected LINA’s argument that “equitable theories do not apply to ERISA claims” by noting that LINA’s cited authorities merely stand for the proposition that “federal common law rules of contract interpretation cannot be applied to override the express terms of an ERISA plan.”   LINA’s cited authorities “do not address whether equitable defenses, such as unclean hands, are applicable to claims brought under section 1132(a)(3).”  The court then rules in favor of the participant, holding, “LINA cannot recover any overpaid amounts pursuant to 1132(a)(3) if Ayers can demonstrate that it was acting with unclean hands.”  As to whether or not “unclean hands” exists, the court holds that there is a “genuine issue of material fact,” overruling both parties’ motions for summary judgment on the counterclaim.

The discussion of “unclean hands” as an equitable defense to an action ERISA § 1132(a)(3) is found on pp. 36-47 of the court’s opinion.  To view the opinion click HERE

Ready to schedule a consultation?

The Synergy Settlements team will work diligently to ensure your case gets the attention it deserves. Contact one of our legal experts and get a professional review of your case today.

Request Consultation


“Synergy is our guiding light for deferring our contingent legal fees and planning for retirement. The lawyers at Panter Panter & Sampedro, myself included, have been working with them for over ten years using different methods to defer comp and plan for retirement.”

Brett Panter
Panter, Panter & Sampedro

"I don't think I've directly said "thank you" for helping us with Bridgett’s case. We sent the reduced payment to Medicaid and called Bridgett's mom to tell her approximately how much money was going to be left for Bridgett and she broke down over the telephone. Given only $25k of insurance and a $850k medical bill from the hospital she didn't think Bridgett would ever see a penny."

Tom L. Copeland
Jeffrey Meldon & Associates, P.A.

WordPress Image Lightbox