{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca3-25-2084-2026-06-17","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca3-25-2084-2026-06-17)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-14","fingerprint":"ewai:us:88b5b2","proof":"sha256:18764bbf6fbd1b84343acb87867fe3717b73777467149946edf1c252ba313d76","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ca3-25-2084-2026-06-17","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308","para_309","para_310","para_311","para_312","para_313","para_314","para_315","para_316","para_317","para_318","para_319","para_320","para_321","para_322","para_323","para_324","para_325","para_326","para_327","para_328","para_329","para_330","para_331","para_332","para_333","para_334","para_335","para_336","para_337","para_338","para_339","para_340","para_341","para_342","para_343","para_344","para_345","para_346","para_347","para_348","para_349","para_350","para_351","para_352","para_353","para_354","para_355","para_356","para_357","para_358","para_359","para_360","para_361","para_362","para_363","para_364","para_365","para_366","para_367","para_368","para_369","para_370","para_371","para_372","para_373","para_374","para_375","para_376","para_377","para_378","para_379","para_380","para_381","para_382","para_383","para_384","para_385","para_386","para_387","para_388","para_389","para_390","para_391","para_392","para_393","para_394","para_395","para_396","para_397","para_398","para_399"],"kind":"front_matter"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"PRECEDENTIAL","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"No. 25-2084","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"MARK L. JUSTMAN, Individually and as Executor of the","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"Estate of Karen A. Justman,","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Appellant","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"ACCENTURE LLP; PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"COMPANY OF AMERICA","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"On Appeal from the United States District Court","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"(D.C. No. 2:24-cv-04107)","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"District Judge: Honorable Gail A. Weilheimer","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"June 8, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"Before: HARDIMAN, BOVE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"(Filed: June 17, 2026)","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"2","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_24","court_paragraph":2},{"text":"OPINION OF THE COURT","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"This appeal arises under the Employee Retirement","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Appellant Mark","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"Justman sued his late wife’s employer, Accenture LLP, for","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"denial of life insurance benefits. But Accenture had no","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"authority over benefit determinations. So it was not a proper","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"defendant for Justman’s wrongful denial of benefits claim","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B). We will therefore affirm the","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"District Court’s order dismissing Justman’s Second Amended","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"Complaint.","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"I","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"Karen A. Justman became ill after eating raw oysters","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"and died a week later from septic shock caused by vibrio","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"vulnificus bacterium. At the time of her untimely death in","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"August 2021, Ms. Justman worked for Accenture LLP in the","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"contract management section and was enrolled in a life","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"insurance plan offered by the company. Her plan included","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"“basic” accidental life insurance coverage equal to her salary","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"and additional “optional” accidental death and dismemberment","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"(AD&D) coverage of three times her salary. Ms. Justman","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"designated her husband Mark as the beneficiary.","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"Accenture prepared a summary plan description (SPD)","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"of its life insurance and AD&D plans. The 2020 and 2021","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"SPDs identified Accenture as the Plan Administrator. The","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"Claims Administrators for those years were MetLife (2020)","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"3","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"and Prudential Insurance Company of America (2021). Both","paragraph_id":"para_53","court_paragraph":3},{"text":"SPDs explained that the basic life insurance and optional","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"AD&D plans “pay benefits to your beneficiary (ies) if you die","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"or are seriously injured while covered by the plans.” App. 77,","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"94. The SPDs further explained that “[i]f you die as a result of","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"an accident, as determined by the Claims Administrator, your","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"beneficiary will receive” benefits from the basic life insurance","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"and optional AD&D plans. App. 77, 94 (emphasis added).","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"According to the SPDs, benefits would “be paid only if the Plan","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"Administrator and/or Claims Administrator decide in its","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"discretion that the claimant is entitled to them.” App. 75, 92.","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"The SPDs also delineated the roles of the Plan and","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"Claims Administrators. As Plan Administrator, Accenture was","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"“responsible for formulating and carrying out all rules and","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"regulations necessary to administer the Plan and ha[d] the sole","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"discretionary authority to make decisions regarding eligibility","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"of employees and participants in each Plan.” App. 75, 92. In","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"2021, the year at issue, Accenture designated Prudential as","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"Claims Administrator and “delegated” to it “the discretionary","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"authority to make decisions regarding the interpretation or","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"application of Plan provisions” and “to determine all questions,","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"including factual determinations, as to the rights and benefits","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"of employees and participants under each Plan.” App. 92.","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"Consistent with that arrangement, Justman submitted a","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"claim for both basic accidental and optional accidental life","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"insurance benefits to Prudential. The claim was denied because","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"Ms. Justman died of a “medical illness and/or sickness” and","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"not an “Accidental Injury . . . as the direct result of an","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"Accident.” App. 121. Justman pursued an administrative","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"appeal through Prudential’s internal process but fared no","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"better.","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"4","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"Justman then sued Prudential and Accenture in the","paragraph_id":"para_85","court_paragraph":4},{"text":"District Court. Prudential settled out, so only the claims against","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"Accenture are pertinent to this appeal. As relevant here,","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"Justman alleged that Accenture wrongly denied his benefits","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"claim under ERISA § 502(a)(1) and breached its fiduciary","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"duties to his wife by failing to furnish her with the SPDs.","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"The District Court dismissed Justman’s claims without","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"Procedure. According to the District Court, Justman did not","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"state a claim for wrongful denial of benefits under ERISA","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"§ 502(a)(1) because he did not allege facts demonstrating that","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"“Accenture controlled the claims administration of benefits.”","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"Justman v. Accenture LLP, 2024 WL 4631646, at *7 (E.D. Pa.","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"Oct. 30, 2024). It also held that Justman failed to state a","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"plausible claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"§§ 502(a)(2) or (a)(3). He alleged that Accenture provided the","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"2020 SPD to Ms. Justman and “may or may not have” provided","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"the 2021 SPD to her, but did not explain how that allegation","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"constituted a breach of fiduciary duty. App. 267.","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"After receiving the District Court’s dismissal order,","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"Justman filed an amended complaint alleging that he had no","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"record of Ms. Justman receiving the 2021 SPD and that","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"Accenture either failed to provide it to her or wrongly supplied","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"the 2020 SPD instead. The District Court again dismissed his","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"claims, holding that Justman pleaded no facts connecting","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"Accenture to his benefits denial, and that his breach of","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"fiduciary duty claim based on the failure to furnish the proper","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"SPDs was conclusory. The Court also ordered Accenture to","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"provide certifications regarding “dates and means of disclosing","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"the 2020 and 2021 [SPDs]” to Justman’s late wife “so as to","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"allow” Justman to amend. App. 260. Accenture complied and","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"produced that information.","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"5","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"Justman then moved to file a Second Amended","paragraph_id":"para_118","court_paragraph":5},{"text":"Complaint. His proposed Second Amended Complaint alleged","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"that Accenture never provided the 2020 or 2021 SPDs to his","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"wife and that Prudential advised Accenture of its denial of his","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"claim via a letter, attached to the complaint, that invited","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"Accenture to call a 1-800 number if it had questions. He also","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"added a request for equitable relief under ERISA § 502(a)(3).","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"The District Court denied leave to file the Second","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"Amended Complaint. The wrongful denial of benefits claim","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"failed because the letter from Prudential implied that","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"Accenture was not involved in the claim decision. The Court","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"also determined that Justman’s SPD “allegations fail[ed] to","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"state a claim for improper notice.” App. 3 n.1. The proposed","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"Second Amended Complaint was “devoid of any facts at all","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"from which [the District Court] could conclude or reasonably","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"infer as to either SPD” that the statutory deadline to provide","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"them to Justman’s wife had passed. Id. Justman moved for","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"reconsideration, but the District Court denied that motion too.","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"Justman timely appealed the Court’s order denying","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, denying his motion","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"for reconsideration, and dismissing his case with prejudice.","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"II1","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"Justman’s ERISA claims against Accenture fall into two","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"and 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1) and (f). We have jurisdiction under","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"28 U.S.C. § 1291.","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"We review denial of leave to amend a complaint for failure to","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"state claim de novo. Mullin v. Balicki, 875 F.3d 140, 150 (3d","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"6","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"categories: (1) the benefit denial claim; and (2) the SPD claim.","paragraph_id":"para_147","court_paragraph":6},{"text":"Neither claim is plausible. Because further amendment would","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"be futile, the District Court did not err in denying Justman’s","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"motion for leave to file his Second Amended Complaint. See","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"Mullin v. Balicki, 875 F.3d 140, 150 (3d Cir. 2017).","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"A","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) creates a cause of action for “a","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"participant or beneficiary” to “recover benefits due to him","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"terms of the plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). “The statute","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"plainly spells out who may bring this claim—a plan","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"‘participant’ or ‘beneficiary’—but it does not specify who may","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"be sued.” Larson v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., 723 F.3d 905,","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"913 (7th Cir. 2013).","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"Justman argues that Accenture is a proper defendant for","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"his denial of benefits claim because it had the authority to make","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"benefits determinations (rather than, or in addition to,","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"Prudential). But a plausible suit for “benefits due” must be","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"brought against a party with an obligation to pay. See 29 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"§ 1132(a)(1)(B). Sometimes that will be the plan, and","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"sometimes that will be the insurance company that adjudicates","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"claims. The latter is the case here: “Prudential must be given","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"written proof of the loss including any requested","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"documentation,” and benefits will be paid “when Prudential","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"Cir. 2017). We review dismissal of a complaint with prejudice","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"for abuse of discretion. Cook v. GameStop, Inc., 148 F.4th 153,","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"157 (3d Cir. 2025). We review denial of a motion for","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Lazaridis v. Wehmer,","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010).","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"7","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"receives written proof of the loss.” App. 66. The plan does not","paragraph_id":"para_178","court_paragraph":7},{"text":"confer Accenture any authority over claims administration, and","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"Justman does not provide evidence plausibly suggesting","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"otherwise. So Accenture is not a proper defendant for his denial","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"of benefits claim, and the District Court was right to dismiss","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"under Rule 12(b)(6).","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"In holding that the proper defendant in an ERISA","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"§ 502(a)(1)(B) claim is one who controls benefits","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"determinations, we align ourselves with five other circuits. See,","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"e.g., Larson, 723 F.3d at 913; Brown v. J.B. Hunt Transp.","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"Servs., Inc., 586 F.3d 1079, 1081, 1088 (8th Cir. 2009); Moore","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"v. Lafayette Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 416, 438 (6th Cir. 2006);","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"Heffner v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala., Inc., 443 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"1330, 1333–34 (11th Cir. 2006); Musmeci v. Schwegmann","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"Giant Super Mkts., Inc., 332 F.3d 339, 349 (5th Cir. 2003).","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"Two other circuits have explained that those who exercise","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"control over benefit determinations are the appropriate","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"defendants in ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) claims, and their","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"reasoning also supports our conclusion here. See New York","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"State Psychiatric Ass’n, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Grp., 798 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"125, 132 (2d Cir. 2015); Cyr v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co.,","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"642 F.3d 1202, 1205–07 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). Our holding","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"also tracks a previous panel decision in our Court, Evans v.","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"Emp. Benefit Plan, Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., 311 F.","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"App’x 556 (3d Cir. 2009), which explained that “[e]xercising","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"control over the administration of benefits is the defining","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"feature of the proper defendant” in ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B)","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"claims. Id. at 558.","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"The District Court provided Justman the opportunity to","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"re-plead facts that supported his theory that Accenture was","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"involved in the claim decision after Justman had the chance to","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"review the administrative record. But Justman’s Second","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"8","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"Amended Complaint highlighted only a single document from","paragraph_id":"para_211","court_paragraph":8},{"text":"that record: an April 26, 2022 letter from Prudential to","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"Accenture noting the AD&D claim denial and offering a 1-800","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"number to call if Accenture had questions. This addition to","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"Justman’s pleading, however, did not plausibly allege any","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"involvement by Accenture in the AD&D claim decision. As the","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"District Court observed, if anything, the letter confirmed that","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"Prudential, not Accenture, called the shots: Prudential made","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"the benefits determination, and Accenture could follow up if it","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"had questions.","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"Justman also argues that Accenture retained authority to","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"make benefit determinations based on language in the SPDs","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"that states “[b]enefits under the Plans will be paid only if the","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"Plan Administrator and/or Claims Administrator decide in its","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"discretion that the claimant is entitled to them.” App. 75, 92.","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"But to the extent Justman relies on the 2020 and 2021 SPDs,","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"they are not the terms of the plan. As the Supreme Court","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"explained in CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U.S. 421 (2011),","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"SPDs “provide communication with beneficiaries about the","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"plan, but . . . their statements do not themselves constitute the","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"terms of the plan for purposes of [ERISA] § 502(a)(1)(B).” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"at 438.","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"Moreover, the SPD language Justman highlights shows","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"only that, depending on the issue at hand, either Accenture or","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"Prudential may have a particular plan responsibility. More","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"detailed language on that same page later states: “Plan","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"Administrator [Accenture] has delegated authority to the","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"Prudential Insurance Company of America to provide claim","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"processing, claim investigation, claim control, and the daily","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"administration of the plan.” App. 92. These two provisions are","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"not inconsistent. Accenture has authority for limited issues like","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"eligibility (i.e., who is covered by the plan). See id.","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"9","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"(“Accenture is responsible for formulating and carrying out all","paragraph_id":"para_244","court_paragraph":9},{"text":"rules and regulations necessary to administer the Plan and has","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"sole discretionary authority to make decisions regarding","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"eligibility of employees and participants in each Plan.”). But","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"the language in the Group Policy and SPDs consistently states","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"that Prudential is the Claims Administrator and has authority","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"to process and decide claims.","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"Because Accenture delegated claims administration","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"duties to Prudential, Prudential was the proper defendant for","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"Justman’s denial of benefits claim. Justman therefore has no","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) claim against Accenture, and the","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"District Court did not err in dismissing the case with prejudice","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"or in denying him leave to amend.","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"B","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"Justman’s SPD claim fares no better. Whether","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"construed as a failure to provide required plan documents claim","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"under ERISA § 104(b)(1) or a breach of fiduciary duty claim","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"under ERISA § 404, Justman’s Second Amended Complaint","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"failed to plausibly state a claim upon which relief could be","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"granted.","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"1","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"ERISA § 104(b)(1) specifies that plans must provide","paragraph_id":"para_265","court_paragraph":1},{"text":"participants and beneficiaries with an SPD within 90 days of","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"enrollment. 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(1)(A). And ERISA § 102","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"specifies that SPDs must “be written in a manner calculated to","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"be understood by the average plan participant” and “reasonably","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"apprise such participants and beneficiaries of their rights and","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"obligations under the plan.” Id. § 1022(a). If the plan is","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"amended, the plan administrator must furnish an updated SPD","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"10","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"every five years. Id.2 But if the plan amendment involves a","paragraph_id":"para_274","court_paragraph":10},{"text":"“modification or change” described in ERISA § 102, such as","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"“the name and address of the administrator,” the administrator","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"must furnish an updated SPD “not later than 210 days after the","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"end of the plan year in which the change is adopted.” 29 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"§§ 1022, 1024(b)(1). On the other hand, if the “modification or","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"change” involves “a material reduction in covered services or","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"benefits provided under a group health plan,” the updated SPD","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"must be furnished “not later than 60 days after the date of the","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"adoption.” Id. § 1024(b)(1).3","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"Justman did not plead facts that would support a claim","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"against Accenture under ERISA § 104(b)(1) for failure to","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"provide an SPD. His Second Amended Complaint does not","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"indicate whether his wife received an SPD when she started","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"employment at Accenture, when the five-year deadline arose","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"for Accenture to provide her another SPD, or if a material","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"modification occurred in either 2020 or 2021. And even if the","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"change from MetLife to Prudential on January 1, 2021 was a","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"material modification, assuming the plan year ran with the","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"calendar year, the notice of that change in an updated SPD","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"2 When no amendments have been made, the administrator","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"must furnish an updated SPD every ten years. 29 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"§ 1024(b)(1).","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"3 ERISA § 104(b)(4) requires plans to provide SPDs and other","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"ERISA documents to plan participants at their request. 29","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4). And ERISA § 502(c)(1) permits liability","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"against an administrator for failure to provide certain plan","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"documents. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c). But Justman does not allege","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"his wife requested the 2020 or 2021 SPDs, so ERISA","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"§ 104(b)(4) is not relevant here.","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"11","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"would not have been due until July 2022. See 29 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_305","court_paragraph":11},{"text":"§ 1024(b)(1). But Ms. Justman died on August 28, 2021, long","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"before that due date.4 So the District Court did not err in","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"denying Justman leave to amend his SPD claim a second time.","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"2","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"Justman’s SPD allegations do not state a claim for a","paragraph_id":"para_310","court_paragraph":2},{"text":"breach of fiduciary duty either. Justman alleges that Accenture","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"breached its fiduciary duties as Plan Administrator for its","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"purported failure to provide Ms. Justman with the correct","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"SPDs.5 A breach of fiduciary duty claim under ERISA § 404","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"4 The District Court’s order stated that 270 days after the end","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"of the plan year was the relevant deadline. As should be","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"evident, this was a misstatement of ERISA § 104(b)’s timing","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"requirements; the statute specifies 210 days. 29 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"§ 1024(b).","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"The Court also measured incorrectly from January 1, 2020 to","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"determine when notice of a material change was due.","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"Prudential took over AD&D benefits from another insurer as","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"of January 1, 2021. Assuming a calendar year plan year, the","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"notice of that change in an updated SPD would have been due","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"on July 29, 2022, not September 27, 2022. Nevertheless, the","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"Court was correct to conclude that Justman had not pleaded","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"facts that, if true, would have established that notice was due","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"to Ms. Justman before her death under the statute.","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"5 Somewhat confusingly, Justman invokes ERISA § 502(a)(3),","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"which allows a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary “to obtain","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"other appropriate equitable relief” to redress violations of the","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"plan or ERISA generally. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). But the legal","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"standard he recites originates from ERISA § 404, which","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"12","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"requires that the plaintiff establish: “(1) the defendant was","paragraph_id":"para_335","court_paragraph":12},{"text":"acting in a fiduciary capacity; (2) the defendant made","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"affirmative misrepresentations or failed to adequately inform","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"plan participants and beneficiaries; (3) the misrepresentation or","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"inadequate disclosure was material; and (4) the plaintiff","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"detrimentally relied on the misrepresentation or inadequate","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"disclosure.” In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Med. Benefits ERISA","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"Litig., 579 F.3d 220, 228–29 (3d Cir. 2009) (citation modified);","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"see also 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1). Justman did not allege that","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"Accenture’s failure to provide his late wife with the relevant","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"SPDs deprived her of any information, or even if it had, how","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"that deprivation was material. Nor did Justman show that he","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"relied on the 2020 or 2021 SPDs: he did not allege the SPDs","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"helped or harmed his claim with Prudential, or that either he or","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"Prudential relied on them in their AD&D claim dispute.","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"Indeed, even without receiving the SPDs, Justman managed to","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"file an insurance claim with Prudential.6","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"Justman contends that detrimental reliance is not","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"required for ERISA § 404 “misrepresentation claims in which”","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"the plaintiff seeks plan “reformation and surcharge” under","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"ERISA § 502(a)(3). Justman Br. 24. He says he needs to show","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"only actual harm. Even so, Justman’s claim still fails; he does","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"not satisfy the other elements. In any case, Justman did not","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"outlines a plan’s fiduciary duties. We will assess Justman’s","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"claim under that standard.","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"6 Justman argues he suffered “harm” because the AD&D","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"benefits were not paid. Justman Br. 26. This “harm” is not","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"related to the SPDs because, as noted above, Justman does not","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"claim anyone relied on the SPDs in the AD&D claim dispute","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"with Prudential.","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"13","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"allege any harm, let alone actual harm stemming from","paragraph_id":"para_366","court_paragraph":13},{"text":"Accenture’s alleged failure to provide Ms. Justman with the","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"2020 or 2021 SPD.","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"III","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"Justman’s remaining arguments lack merit. He first","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"argues that the District Court abused its discretion in denying","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"his motion for reconsideration. But Justman’s motion failed to","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"identify an intervening change in law, new evidence uncovered","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"since the denial of leave to file the Second Amended","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"Complaint, or the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"manifest injustice. See Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"(3d Cir. 2010); Herrera v. Agents of Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob.","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"& Parole, 132 F.4th 248, 254 n.5 (3d Cir. 2025). So the District","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"Court properly denied his motion to reconsider (and certainly","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"did not abuse its discretion).","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"Similarly, Justman contends that the District Court","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"abused its discretion in dismissing his claims with prejudice.","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"But as explained above, Justman’s claims were not plausibly","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"pleaded. Because further amendment would be futile, the","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"District Court did not err. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp.,","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"* * *","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"For the stated reasons, we will affirm the District","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"Court’s orders denying leave to file a Second Amended","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"Complaint, denying reconsideration, and dismissing with","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"prejudice.","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"14","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"Roman J. Koropey","paragraph_id":"para_393","court_paragraph":14},{"text":"TIMONEY KNOX","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"Counsel for Appellant","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"Nathan T. Boone","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"Danielle K. Herring","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"LITTLER MENDELSON","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"Counsel for Appellee Accenture LLP","paragraph_id":"para_399"}],"word_count":3293,"cites":["563 U.S. 421","875 F.3d 140","723 F.3d 905","148 F.4th 153","591 F.3d 666","586 F.3d 1079","458 F.3d 416","443 F.3d\n1330","332 F.3d 339","798 F.3d\n125","642 F.3d 1202","579 F.3d 220","132 F.4th 248","293 F.3d 103"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"b9bbeb3f44f38c10d2bc9ec7060534743dfd82ff4684b5879d04dc361b42f71f","source_url":"https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/252084p.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-02T01:52:58.821+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca3-25-2084-2026-06-17","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca3-25-2084-2026-06-17","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca3-25-2084-2026-06-17","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca3-25-2084-2026-06-17","verification":{"stored_sha256":"b9bbeb3f44f38c10d2bc9ec7060534743dfd82ff4684b5879d04dc361b42f71f","recomputed_sha256":"b9bbeb3f44f38c10d2bc9ec7060534743dfd82ff4684b5879d04dc361b42f71f","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-15T01:00:49.869Z"}},"hash":"sha256:18764bbf6fbd1b84343acb87867fe3717b73777467149946edf1c252ba313d76","version":"legal-2026-10-14","expires":"2026-10-16T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-14+legal-2026-10-14+2026-10-14T19:52:40","content_hash":"sha256:18764bbf6fbd1b84343acb87867fe3717b73777467149946edf1c252ba313d76","revalidate_after":"2026-10-15T02:00:50.278Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca3-25-2084-2026-06-17","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca3-25-2084-2026-06-17"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca3-25-2084-2026-06-17"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca3-25-2084-2026-06-17"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ca3-25-2084-2026-06-17","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-22db3dfcb6673bc89f54584b263a8abd","response_hash":"sha256:18764bbf6fbd1b84343acb87867fe3717b73777467149946edf1c252ba313d76"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T05:36:15.579Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca3-25-2084-2026-06-17&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":15946}}