The Pursuit of Proceeds by Plans, Participants and Plaintiffs\u27 Lawyers: Dissonant Solutions to an Alliterative Problem

Abstract

With emphasis on developments in the Fourth Circuit, this Article first describes the pursuit\u27s origination in plan language and ERISA\u27s statutory provisions; it then explores ERISA preemption and cases in which injured participants invoke state statutory and common law to contradict plan terms. A review of the attorney\u27s role follows, including an inquiry into issues concerning attorney fees. With consideration of policies behind ERISA, the Article concludes that adherence to well-drafted plan terms legitimizes the parties\u27 bargain, avoids development of disparate federal common law, and facilitates the allocation of proceeds