CIGNA Corp. v. Amara

CIGNA Corp. v. Amara
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided May 16, 2011
Full case name	CIGNA Corp. v. Amara
Citations	563 U.S. 421 ( more )
Holding
The district court did not have authority under Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA to reform CIGNA's pension plan, but Section 502(a)(3) did give the court that authority.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
Majority	Breyer, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, Kagan
Concurrence	Scalia (in judgment), joined by Thomas
Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974

CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U.S. 421(2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the federal district court did not have authority under Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA to reform CIGNA's pension plan, but Section 502(a)(3) did give the court that authority. ^{[1] [2]}

Background

Until 1998, CIGNA Corporation's pension plan provided a retiring employee with an annuity based on preretirement salary and length of service. Its new plan replaced that annuity with a cash balance based on a defined annual contribution from CIGNA, increased by compound interest. The new plan translated already-earned benefits under the old plan into an opening amount in the cash balance account. Respondents, on behalf of beneficiaries of the CIGNA Pension Plan (also a petitioner), challenged the new plan's adoption, claiming, as relevant here, that CIGNA's notice of the changes was improper, particularly because the new plan in certain respects provided them with less generous benefits. The District Court found that CIGNA's disclosures violated its obligations under §§102(a), 104(b), and 204(h) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). In determining relief, it found that CIGNA's notice defects had caused the employees "likely harm." It then reformed the new plan and ordered CIGNA to pay benefits accordingly, finding its authority in ERISA §502(a)(1)(B), which authorizes a plan "participant or beneficiary" to bring a "civil action" to "recover benefits due... under the terms of his plan." The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. ^[1]

Opinion of the court

The Supreme Court issued an opinion on May 16, 2011. ^[1]

References

1. CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U.S. 421 (2011).
2. Curran, Emily (May 17, 2011). "Opinion analysis: CIGNA v. Amara". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved December 16, 2025.

External links

• Text of CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U.S. 421(2011) is available from: Justia

This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain .