Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings and Investment Plan
United States Supreme Court
129 S.Ct. 865, 555 U.S. 285, 172 L. Ed. 2d 662 (2009)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
William Kennedy had a savings and investment plan with his employer, DuPont, which was an ERISA employee pension benefits plan (the plan). William designated his wife, Liv Kennedy, as the beneficiary of the plan. William and Liv later divorced. The divorce decree divested Liv of any interest in any pension plan of William’s. William did not execute any documents removing Liv as the beneficiary of the plan, or designating another beneficiary. Liv did not execute and submit a qualified disclaimer of the benefits. Following William’s death, Kari Kennedy, as executrix of William’s estate, asked DuPont to distribute the plan’s funds to William’s estate. DuPont instead paid the plan’s funds to Liv, as the beneficiary named in the plan’s beneficiary designation form. Kari (plaintiff) sued DuPont and the savings and investment plan administrator (defendants), arguing that the divorce decree constituted a federal common law waiver of benefits by Liv. The district court ordered DuPont to pay the benefits to the estate. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Liv’s waiver was an assignment or alienation of her interest in the plan’s benefits, which is prohibited under ERISA.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Souter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.