In litigation involving a long term disability (LTD) policy governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the policy did not confer discretion on a health insurer to determine whether a claimant was a salesperson or a non-sales employee, a distinction that significantly impacted the amount of LTD benefits the claimant would receive under the policy (Hodges v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., (10th Cir. Apr. 2, 2019)). As a result, the Tenth Circuit applied the non-deferential (de novo) standard of review and concluded that the claimant was a salesperson (see Practice Note, Standard of Review and ERISA Litigation Toolkit).

In litigation involving a service provider's management of a stable-value fund that was included as an investment option for an employer retirement plan, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the service provider. The Tenth Circuit held that the service provider was not a fiduciary under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and therefore could not be held liable for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The court also concluded that the participant could not recover on his alternative claim alleging the service provider was a non-fiduciary party in interest that participated in a prohibited transaction because he failed to show the relief he sought was equitable under ERISA.