The Ninth Circuit, in a unanimous decision, has ruled that although the statute of limitations may differ between states, only one statute of limitations shall govern ERISA benefits-recovery claims. This Washington case gave the Ninth Circuit the opportunity to finally address the statute of limitations issue. Prior to Wise, the Ninth Circuit had implied in other ERISA benefits-recovery cases that the statute of limitations should not be on a case by case basis, but rather that there should be one statute of limitations per state. However, until now, the Ninth Circuit did not have the opportunity to fully address this issue.
On March 8, 2002, plaintiff Nancy Wise was denied Long Term Disability ("LTD") benefits under her disability plan. On March 11, 2008, six years later, Wise filed in United States District Court in the Western District of Washington, an ERISA benefits-recovery action under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(1)(B), seeking past and future disability benefits. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing that Wise's benefits-recovery claim was governed by Washington's three year statute of limitations for partly oral contracts. Wise argued that the six year statue of limitations for written contracts should be applied, as it has been in previous ERISA benefits-recovery cases. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss holding that the three year statute of limitations was applicable and Wise's ERISA claims were time barred. Wise appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit analyzed whether statute of limitations in ERISA benefits-recovery cases should be determined on a case by case basis. As in other federal claims, Congress did not include a statute of limitations for ERISA claims. When Congress declines to provide a statute of limitations, the precedent provides that district courts are to apply the state statute of limitations that is most analogous to the federal claim. This has resulted in confusion and superfluous litigation when determining which statute of limitations should apply.
The issue of whether statute of limitations claims should be determined on a case by case basis has been resolved in other federal statutes, and at least one other circuit has addressed the statute of limitation issue in the ERISA context. The United States Supreme Court has addressed statute of limitations issues in civil rights claims filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Wilson v. Garcia, 481 U.S. 261 (1985) and Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989). In both Wilson and Owens, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that more than one statute of limitations should apply to a federal cause of action, and concluded that one statute of limitations advances the federal interest in predictability. Owens, 488 U.S. at 240. In the ERISA context, the Sixth Circuit addressed the issue in Laborers' Pension Trust Fund v. Sidney Weinberger Homes, Inc., 872 F.32d? 702 (6th Cir. 1988). In Laborers', the Sixth Circuit relied on the holdings in Wilson and Owens, and explicitly rejected the concept that more than one statute of limitations should apply. Based on this rationale and its previously implied position, the Ninth Circuit held in Wise that to avoid unnecessary litigation and protect the interest of the parties there should be one statute of limitations per state for ERISA benefit-recovery actions under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B).
After arriving at this decision, the Ninth Circuit had to determine what analogous Washington statute of limitations should be applied. The Ninth Circuit reviewed past precedents and found it had held the six year statute of limitations for written contracts was the most analogous to ERISA benefit-recovery. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit concluded it was bound by prior precedent and held the six year statute of limitations applied in this case.
The Wise decision provides the clarification and consistency that is useful in avoiding procedural uncertainty for all parties involved in ERISA litigation. The only statute of limitations issue that remains when litigating an ERISA claim in the Ninth Circuit is which analogous state statute of limitations the court should apply. The Ninth Circuit has answered this question for Washington and California. In Washington, the statute of limitations is clearly and unequivocally six years. In California, it appears the Ninth Circuit will rely on its earlier holding in Wetzel v. Lou Ehlers Cadillac Group Long Term Disability Ins. Program, 222 F.3d 643 (9th Cir. 2000), and rule that the statute of limitations for ERISA benefits-recovery claims should comply with California's four year statute of limitations for written contracts. Therefore, the Wise decision should resolve any unnecessary procedural disputes regarding statute of limitations.
This opinion is not final. Though it has been certified for publication, it may be modified on rehearing, or granted review by the United States Supreme Court. If any of these events occur, the opinion would be unavailable for use as authority in other cases.
Click here for opinion.
This and other case bulletins, as well as other publications of Gordon & Rees LLP, may be found at www.gordonrees.com