U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 18— EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY PROGRAM › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RIGHTS › Subtitle Subtitle B— Regulatory Provisions › Part part 4— fiduciary responsibility

29 U.S.C. § 1110

Exculpatory provisions; insurance

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Except as provided in sections 1105(b)(1) and 1105(d) of this title, any provision in an agreement or instrument which purports to relieve a fiduciary from responsibility or liability for any responsibility, obligation, or duty under this part shall be void as against public policy.(b) Nothing in this subpart 11 So in original. This part does not contain subparts. shall preclude—(1) a plan from purchasing insurance for its fiduciaries or for itself to cover liability or losses occurring by reason of the act or omission of a fiduciary, if such insurance permits recourse by the insurer against the fiduciary in the case of a breach of a fiduciary obligation by such fiduciary;(2) a fiduciary from purchasing insurance to cover liability under this part from and for his own account; or(3) an employer or an employee organization from purchasing insurance to cover potential liability of one or more persons who serve in a fiduciary capacity with regard to an employee benefit plan.(Pub. L. 93–406, title I, § 410, Sept. 2, 1974, 88 Stat. 886.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 141 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “” 29 U.S.C. § 1110 (a). Thus, “[i]f an ERISA fiduciary writes words in an instrument exonerating itself of fiduciary responsibility, the words, even if agreed upon, are generally without effect.”
Boeckman v. A.G. Edwards, Inc., 461 F. Supp. 2d 801 (S.D. Ill. 2006). · cites it 9× “6 Boeckman argues that the release does not bar his claims in *808 this case for four reasons: (1) the release is void under ERISA § 410, 29 U.S.C. § 1110 ; (2) Boeckman cannot waive claims for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA that, as discussed, he brings derivatively on…”
Bernard Schafer v. Multiband Corp., 551 F. App'x 814 (6th Cir. 2014). · cites it 9× “” 29 U.S.C. § 1110 (a). The district court concluded that the arbitrator had acted in “manifest disregard of the law” by ignor *816 ing “clearly established legal precedent (including that of the Sixth Circuit),” and vacated the decision because the validity of indemnification…”
Roger Smith v. Aegon Companies Pension Plan, 769 F.3d 922 (6th Cir. 2014). · cites it 4× “Smith argues that the venue selection clause violates 29 U.S.C. § 1110 (a), which states, “any provision in an agreement or instrument which purports to relieve a fiduciary from responsibility or No.”
In Re Enron Corp. Sec., Derivative & ERISA, 284 F. Supp. 2d 511 (S.D. Tex. 2003). · cites it 2× “As an example of ERISA’s emphasis on fiduciary protection of plan participants and beneficiaries, increased over that provided by common law beyond the statute’s expansion of the definition of “fiduciary,” “thus expanding the universe of persons subject to fiduciary duties — and…”
Pfahler v. Nat'l Latex Prods. Co., 517 F.3d 816 (6th Cir. 2007). “” 29 U.S.C. § 1110 (a). This provision, how *837 ever, merely “prohibits agreements that diminish the statutory obligations of a fiduciary.”
Sec'y United States Dep't of Labor v. Koresko, 646 F. App'x 230 (3rd Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “” 29 U.S.C. § 1110 (a). The Department of Labor has interpreted this statute to render[] void any arrangement for indemnification' of a fiduciary of an employee benefit plan by the plan.”
Perelman v. Perelman, 919 F. Supp. 2d 512 (E.D. Pa. 2013). · cites it 3× “” ERISA § 410(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1110 (a). However, Congress also provided that nothing in that provision shall preclude “a plan from purchasing insurance for its fiduciaries or for itself to cover liability or losses occurring by reason of the act or omission of a fiduciary, if…”
In re Schering Plough Corp. Erisa Litig., 589 F.3d 585 (3rd Cir. 2009). “” 29 U.S.C. § 1110 (a). The District Court concluded that, in light of this provision, “the release and covenant not to sue at issue here do not extinguish Wendel’s claims and have no bearing on the typicality inquiry.”
Wells Fargo Bank v. Bourns, Inc., 860 F. Supp. 709 (N.D. Cal. 1994). · cites it 7× “It argues that because ERISA explicitly contemplates the existence of some indemnification agreements, see 29 U.S.C. § 1110 , but does not provide a mechanism for their enforcement, therefore state law methods for enforcement should not be preempted.”
Russell v. Harman Int'l Indus., Inc., 945 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D.D.C. 2013). · cites it 4× “Void as a matter of law As a preliminary matter, Russell argues that the Agreement is void as a matter of law because, under ERISA § 410(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1110 (a), .“any provision in an agreement or instrument which purports to relieve a fiduciary from responsibility or liability…”
Santomenno Ex Rel. John Hancock Trust v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co. (U.S.A), 768 F.3d 284 (3rd Cir. 2014). “See 29 U.S.C. § 1110 (a) (“[A]ny provision in an agreement or instrument which purports to relieve a fiduciary from responsibility or liability for any responsibility, obligation, or duty under this part shall be void as against public policy.”
Show all 141 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.