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. § 1113

Limitation of actions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
No action may be commenced under this subchapter with respect to a fiduciary’s breach of any responsibility, duty, or obligation under this part, or with respect to a violation of this part, after the earlier of—(1) six years after (A) the date of the last action which constituted a part of the breach or violation, or (B) in the case of an omission the latest date on which the fiduciary could have cured the breach or violation, or(2) three years after the earliest date on which the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the breach or violation;except that in the case of fraud or concealment, such action may be commenced not later than six years after the date of discovery of such breach or violation.(Pub. L. 93–406, title I, § 413, Sept. 2, 1974, 88 Stat. 889; Pub. L. 100–203, title IX, § 9342(b), Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1330–371; Pub. L. 101–239, title VII, §§ 7881(j)(4), 7894(e)(5), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2443, 2450.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1989—Pub. L. 101–239, § 7894(e)(5), struck out “(a)” before “No action”.

Par. (2). Pub. L. 101–239, § 7881(j)(4), struck out comma after “violation”.

1987—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 100–203 struck out “(A)” after “date” and struck out “or (B) on which a report from which he could reasonably be expected to have obtained knowledge of such breach or violation was filed with the Secretary under this subchapter”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1989 Amendment

Amendment by section 7881(j)(4) of Pub. L. 101–239 effective, except as otherwise provided, as if included in the provision of the Pension Protection Act, Pub. L. 100–203, §§ 9302–9346, to which such amendment relates, see section 7882 of Pub. L. 101–239, set out as a note under section 401 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.

Amendment by section 7894(e)(5) of Pub. L. 101–239 effective, except as otherwise provided, as if originally included in the provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93–406, to which such amendment relates, see section 7894(i) of Pub. L. 101–239, set out as a note under section 1002 of this title.

Effective Date of 1987 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–203 applicable with respect to reports required to be filed after Dec. 31, 1987, see section 9342(d)(1) of Pub. L. 100–203, set out as a note under section 1132 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 754 cases (114 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Anthony R. Caputo David A. Cook Paul B. Pebbles Duncan B. Robertson v. Pfizer, Inc., 267 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Anthony R. Caputo David A. Cook Paul B. Pebbles Duncan B. Robertson v. Pfizer, Inc., 267 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2001). · cites it 7× “We are compelled to interpret the enigmatic — almost chimerical — statute of limitations that applies to actions for breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1113 . Plaintiffs are four senior citizens who worked for Pfizer…”
Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Labor v. Robert N. Preston, 873 F.3d 877 (11th Cir. 2017). · cites it 7× “” In particular, this interlocutory appeal requires us to determine whether a defendant is capable of expressly waiving the six-year statute of repose contained in ERISA Section 413(1), 29 U.S.C. § 1113 (1)—or whether instead, the protection provided by Section 1113(1) is so…”
Jennifer Sweda v. Univ. of Pennsylvania, 923 F.3d 320 (3rd Cir. 2019). · cites it 4× “29 U.S.C. § 1113 (1).11 participants or beneficiaries against fiduciaries for breach of fiduciary duty are permitted by, and generally brought under, ERISA § [1132(a)(2)].”
Russell C. Larson v. Northrop Corp., 21 F.3d 1164 (D.C. Cir. 1994). · cites it 9× “By order dated March 30, 1992, the district court denied Larson’s motion for summary judgment and granted Northrop’s cross-motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Larson’s claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations contained in ERISA, § 413, 29 U.S.C. §…”
Barbara J. Fuller v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., 744 F.3d 685 (11th Cir. 2014). · cites it 14× “See ERISA § 413, 29 U.S.C. § 1113 . The exhibits, attached to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, included copies of these documents: (1) the “SunTrust Banks, Inc.”
Elena David v. J. Alphin, 704 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 2013). · cites it 6× “29 U.S.C. § 1113 . The six-year limitations period is shortened to three years in instances where the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the breach.”
Glenn Tibble v. Edison Int'l, 843 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “The relevant ERISA statute of limitations is six years, 29 U.S.C. § 1113 (1), and at least three of the disputed funds were added more than six years before the complaint was filed.”
Bishop v. Lucent Tech., Inc., 520 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “Because it appears from the complaint itself that plaintiffs knew they had been misled at that time, defendants reasonably deduced that the three-year period of limitation prescribed in 29 U.S.C. § 1113 (2) began running at that time.”
Cataldo v. United States Steel Corp., 676 F.3d 542 (6th Cir. 2012). · cites it 3× “]” 29 U.S.C. § 1113 . 1 The parties agree that this provi *548 sion applies to plaintiffs’ fiduciary-duty claims.”
Fulghum v. Embarq Corp., 785 F.3d 395 (10th Cir. 2015). · cites it 7× “Section 1113, inter alia, sets out the following six-year limitations period: No action may be commenced under this subchapter with respect to a fiduciary’s breach of.”
Brown v. Owens Corning Inv. Review Comm., 622 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2010). · cites it 6× “29 U.S.C. § 1113 . So even though an ERISA plaintiff alleging a breach of fiduciary duty generally has six years in which to file suit, "this period may be shortened to three years when the victim had `actual knowledge of the breach or violation.”
Moyle v. Liberty Mut. Ret. Benefit Plan, 263 F. Supp. 3d 999 (S.D. Cal. 2017). · cites it 17× “The Ninth Circuit also declined tb consider “Liberty Mutual’s argument that the statute of repose in 29 U.S.C. § 1113 acts to bar some of Appellants’ claims under 29 U.”
Show all 754 citing cases →
— 29 U.S.C. § 1113(1) — 2 cases
Dooley v. United Food & Com. Workers Int'l (Ufcw) Union Pension Plan for Employees (D.D.C. 2023).
Hensiek v. Bd. of Directors of Casino Queen Holding Co., Inc. (S.D. Ill. 2023).
— 29 U.S.C. § 1113(1)(A) — 1 case
Seyboldt (D. Conn. 2026).
— 29 U.S.C. § 1113(1)(B) — 1 case
Seyboldt (D. Conn. 2026).
— 29 U.S.C. § 1113(c) — 3 cases
Leckey v. Stefano (3rd Cir. 2007).
Leckey v. Stefano (3rd Cir. 2007).
Leckey v. Stefano (3rd Cir. 2007).
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.