Careers

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Experience

Innovation

Interactive Maps

Locations

About

Pages

Meet our team of innovators
Ask us how we do it

Professionals

Insights

Services

Thompson Hine LLP, a full-service business law firm with approximately 400 lawyers in 11 offices, was ranked number 1 in the category “Most innovative North American law firms: New working models” by The Financial Times and was 1 of 7 firms shortlisted for The American Lawyer’s inaugural Legal Services Innovation Award. The firm has been recognized by the National Law Journal as a Legal Technology Trailblazer and featured by Bloomberg for its innovative service delivery models, which drive accuracy and predictability. The firm’s commitment to innovation is embodied in Thompson Hine SmartPaTHTM – a smarter way to work – predictable, efficient and aligned with client goals. For more information, please visit ThompsonHine.com and ThompsonHine.com/SmartPaTH.

Home | Thompson Hine LLP

Atlanta

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

Dayton

Los Angeles

Minneapolis

New York

Silicon Valley

Washington, D.C.

<p><img style="max-width: 100%;height: auto" width="825" height="347" src="https://www.erisalitigation.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1017/2019/07/GettyImages-108315956-1-825x347.jpg" class="attachment-lxb_af_3_of_4-wide size-lxb_af_3_of_4-wide wp-post-image" alt="Plan Service Provider Contracts" loading="lazy" /></p>
			<p>You are working hard to administer your benefit plan in accordance with all the requirements of ERISA and the Code when you receive a written request for &ldquo;a copy of the bargaining agreement, trust agreement, contract or other instrument under which the plan is established or operated.&rdquo; This language is directly from Section 104(b)(4) of ERISA, but does that mean you have to provide a copy of the long, detailed and sometimes confidential service provider agreement? With ERISA penalties looming, this issue can become increasingly important in contentious disputes over plan administration. Although many courts do not require disclosure of these contracts, whether a service provider&rsquo;s contract needs to be disclosed is an unanswered question to pay attention to.</p>
<h4><strong><u>Not Usually</u></strong></h4>
<p>Several courts don&rsquo;t require disclosure of service provider contracts because they simply don&rsquo;t govern the relationship between the plan participant and the provider. For example, the <a href="https://www.erisalitigation.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1017/2019/08/Hively-v.-BBA.pdf">Ninth Circuit</a> determined a service provider contract doesn&rsquo;t need to be disclosed under Section 104(b)(4) for that very reason.&nbsp; Similarly, the <a href="https://www.erisalitigation.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1017/2019/08/Morley-v.-Avaya.pdf">District of New Jersey</a> found no penalty for refusing to provide a service provider&rsquo;s contract because it wasn&rsquo;t &ldquo;a legal document that (1) describes the terms of the plan or its financial status, or (2) otherwise restricts or governs the Plan&rsquo;s operation.&rdquo;</p>
<h4><strong><u>But It Depends</u></strong></h4>
<p>This is not an across the board rule followed by every court in every case, however. The <a href="https://www.erisalitigation.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1017/2019/08/Mondry-v.-Am.-Family.pdf">Seventh Circuit</a>, for example, required disclosure of a claims administration agreement because the contract &ldquo;identified the respective authority and obligations of American Family and CIGNA with respect to the plan.&rdquo; Other courts have avoided determining as a matter of law that a service provider&rsquo;s contract is not subject to disclosure because the terms of the contract <em>could</em> affect the plan participant&rsquo;s rights.&nbsp; Therefore, unlike the Ninth Circuit and the District of New Jersey, these courts recognized that there can be times where a service provider contract does impact a plan&rsquo;s operation.</p>
<h4><strong><u>You Must Read It</u></strong></h4>
<p>The tension in these decisions leads to one conclusion&mdash;you probably should read the service provider contract before determining whether disclosure is required. The <a href="https://www.erisalitigation.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1017/2019/08/Michael-v.-Am.-Intl.pdf">Eastern District of Missouri</a> essentially reached this conclusion in requiring disclosure of a service provider&rsquo;s contract. There, disclosure was required because the terms of the contract granted discretion to determine eligibility for benefits or interpret the terms of the plan document. &nbsp;Although the court recognized that a service provider&rsquo;s contract is not a formal plan document because it &ldquo;merely memorialized the obligations&rdquo; of the contracting parties<em>,</em> the administrative services agreement was subject to disclosure because, unlike decisions that don&rsquo;t require disclosure, the contract had a term &ldquo;that purports to grant discretion and authority from AIG Inc. to Defendant DRMS to determine eligibility for benefits and construe and interpret all terms and provision of the Group Insurance Policy.&rdquo; Notably, the<a href="https://www.erisalitigation.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1017/2019/08/Brown-v.-Am.-Life.pdf">&nbsp;Eastern District of Missouri</a> reached this conclusion despite the fact that the 8th Circuit generally limits disclosure under Section 104(b)(4) only to &ldquo;formal documents that establish or govern the plan.&rdquo;</p>
<p>In short, the question of whether disclosure of service provider contracts is required doesn&rsquo;t have an easy answer because it most likely will ultimately come down to the terms of the contract itself.</p>

core/freeform

ERISA Litigation & Compliance

Counsel

Stephen R. Penrod

Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation

ERISA Litigation

Business Litigation

Plan Service Provider Contracts:  To Provide or Not To Provide To Plan Participants