Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The other reviewed opinions applied Firestone's standard-of-review, conflict-of-interest, participant, and trust-law principles; reported Firestone's displacement of older precedent; or used the nearby treatment words for lower-court doctrines, plan administrators' decisions, and appellate claims. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn and LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates clarified or applied Firestone without adversely treating it, while Pierre v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co.'s former limitation lost precedential force when it was overruled en banc.
6,595 later cases cite Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch; 187 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The Third Circuit declined to give Firestone deference to a top-hat plan administrator, treating the plan as a unilateral contract subject to de novo review for compliance with its good-faith obligations.
Goldstein v. Johnson & Johnson · Third Circuit · filed
But in the case of a top hat plan, even though an administrator may not receive “deference” under Firestone Tire, any grant of discretion must be read as part of the unilateral contract itself. As a term of the contract, it must be given effect as ordinary contract principles would require, thus minimizing the potential for differing standards of review for identical plan terms.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eighth Circuit agreed that Firestone's abuse-of-discretion review does not extend to top-hat plans because their administrators lack the fiduciary responsibilities underlying Firestone's trust-law analogy.
Craig v. Pillsbury Non-Qualified Pension Plan · Eighth Circuit · filed
The Third Circuit has concluded de novo review applies to top hat plans even when they give their administrators interpretive discretion because “a top hat administrator has no fiduciary responsibilities” under ERISA. Goldstein v. Johnson & Johnson, 251 F.3d 433, 443 (3d Cir.2001). We agree. “[T]op hat plans should be treated as unilateral contracts” and reviewed “in accordance with ordinary contract principles” because the policy considerations relied upon in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989), to trigger abuse-of-discretion review (i.e., “the Supreme Court’s analogy to trust law, and particularly the fiduciary responsibilities possessed by administrators with discretionary authority”) are simply not present in the case of a top hat plan.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace