Healy v. Milliman, Inc.

Plain English (For Everyone)

Imagine you have a retirement savings account, like a 401(k). This case is about whether the company managing that account, Milliman, charged unfairly high fees. The court said that to sue them for this, you first have to show they were acting as a 'fiduciary,' meaning they had a special duty to manage your money responsibly and had significant control over it. Because the people suing didn't prove this control, their case about high fees was dismissed.

For Legal Practitioners

The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of an ERISA excessive fee claim, holding plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege fiduciary status under 29 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(1). The court distinguished cases where fiduciary status was found based on allegations of discretionary control over plan assets or administration, emphasizing that mere service provision, even if costly, does not automatically confer fiduciary status. Practitioners must plead specific facts demonstrating discretionary control to survive a motion to dismiss ERISA fiduciary breach claims.

For Law Students

This case tests the pleading standard for fiduciary status under ERISA. The Ninth Circuit held that alleging excessive fees alone is insufficient; plaintiffs must plausibly plead that the defendant exercised discretionary control over plan assets or administration to establish fiduciary status. This aligns with the doctrine that fiduciary status requires more than just providing services, focusing on the nature and extent of control exercised, which is a key issue for exam questions on ERISA fiduciary duties.

Newsroom Summary

A federal appeals court has ruled that individuals suing retirement plan administrator Milliman over high fees cannot proceed. The court found the lawsuit didn't adequately allege that Milliman acted as a fiduciary with control over the plan's assets, a necessary step to challenge fees under federal law. This decision impacts employees relying on retirement plans managed by third-party administrators.

Constitutional Issues

Whether the arbitration agreement is unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.

Rule Statements

A contract is unconscionable if it is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.

Procedural unconscionability refers to unfair surprise and the absence of meaningful choice.

Substantive unconscionability refers to terms that are overly harsh or one-sided.

Scenario: You're contributing to a 401(k) plan offered by your employer, and you notice the fees charged by the plan administrator seem higher than average. You suspect the administrator might be overcharging and want to take action.

Your Rights: You have the right to a retirement plan that is managed prudently and in the best interest of its participants. However, to sue the plan administrator for excessive fees under ERISA, you generally need to show they acted as a fiduciary, meaning they had significant discretionary control over the plan's assets or administration.

What To Do: Review your plan documents carefully to understand the services provided and the fees charged. Consult with a financial advisor or an attorney specializing in ERISA law to assess whether the fees are truly excessive and if there's evidence of the administrator exercising discretionary control that could support a fiduciary claim.

Is it legal for my retirement plan administrator to charge high fees?

It depends. While administrators can charge fees for their services, those fees must be reasonable and not excessive. To challenge fees as illegal under ERISA, you generally need to prove that the administrator acted as a fiduciary, meaning they had discretionary control over the plan's assets or administration, and that their actions breached that fiduciary duty.

This ruling applies to the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Hawaii, and Alaska. ERISA applies nationwide, but specific interpretations and procedural hurdles can vary by circuit.

For Retirement plan participants and beneficiaries

Participants face a higher bar to sue plan administrators for excessive fees. They must now specifically plead and prove that the administrator exercised discretionary control over plan assets or administration to establish fiduciary status, rather than just alleging that fees were high.

For ERISA plan administrators and service providers

This ruling provides some protection by clarifying that simply providing services, even at a cost, does not automatically make a provider an ERISA fiduciary. However, they must still ensure their fees are reasonable and avoid exercising discretionary control unless they are prepared to meet fiduciary obligations.

Q: What is Healy v. Milliman, Inc. about?

Healy v. Milliman, Inc. is a case decided by Ninth Circuit on January 9, 2026.

Q: What court decided Healy v. Milliman, Inc.?

Healy v. Milliman, Inc. was decided by the Ninth Circuit, which is part of the federal judiciary. This is a federal appellate court.

Q: When was Healy v. Milliman, Inc. decided?

Healy v. Milliman, Inc. was decided on January 9, 2026.

Q: What is the citation for Healy v. Milliman, Inc.?

The citation for Healy v. Milliman, Inc. is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the case name and what court decided it?

The case is Healy v. Milliman, Inc., decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (ca9). This case addresses allegations of violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Q: Who were the parties involved in the Healy v. Milliman, Inc. lawsuit?

The parties were the plaintiffs, who brought a putative class action lawsuit, and the defendant, Milliman, Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that Milliman violated ERISA by charging excessive fees for retirement plan services.

Q: What was the main issue in the Healy v. Milliman, Inc. case?

The central issue was whether Milliman, Inc. acted as a fiduciary under ERISA. The plaintiffs alleged Milliman violated ERISA by charging excessive fees, but this claim hinged on Milliman being classified as a fiduciary.

Q: What was the nature of the dispute in Healy v. Milliman, Inc.?

The dispute centered on allegations that Milliman, Inc. charged excessive fees for its retirement plan services, thereby violating ERISA. The core of the legal argument was whether Milliman's actions constituted fiduciary conduct under the law.

Q: What was the outcome of the Healy v. Milliman, Inc. case at the Ninth Circuit?

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the lawsuit. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that Milliman acted as a fiduciary under ERISA.

Q: What is ERISA and why is it relevant to this case?

ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) is a federal law that sets minimum standards for most voluntarily established retirement and health plans in private industry to provide protection for individuals in these plans. It is relevant because the plaintiffs alleged Milliman violated ERISA's provisions regarding fiduciary duties and excessive fees.

Q: Is Healy v. Milliman, Inc. published?

Healy v. Milliman, Inc. is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in Healy v. Milliman, Inc.?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Healy v. Milliman, Inc.. Key holdings: The court held that to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA, plaintiffs must plausibly allege that the defendant acted as a fiduciary.; The court held that merely providing services to an ERISA plan does not automatically make a service provider a fiduciary.; The court held that allegations that a defendant exercised discretionary control over plan assets or administration are necessary to establish fiduciary status under ERISA.; The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint did not sufficiently allege that Milliman exercised discretionary control over the plan's assets or administration, thus failing to establish fiduciary status.; The court held that without a plausible claim that Milliman was a fiduciary, the allegations of excessive fees and breach of fiduciary duty could not proceed..

Q: Why is Healy v. Milliman, Inc. important?

Healy v. Milliman, Inc. has an impact score of 25/100, indicating limited broader impact. This decision reinforces the heightened pleading standards for ERISA fiduciary claims, making it more difficult for plaintiffs to proceed with class actions against service providers without specific factual allegations of discretionary control over plan assets or administration. It clarifies that the mere provision of services does not automatically confer fiduciary status under ERISA.

Q: What precedent does Healy v. Milliman, Inc. set?

Healy v. Milliman, Inc. established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA, plaintiffs must plausibly allege that the defendant acted as a fiduciary. (2) The court held that merely providing services to an ERISA plan does not automatically make a service provider a fiduciary. (3) The court held that allegations that a defendant exercised discretionary control over plan assets or administration are necessary to establish fiduciary status under ERISA. (4) The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint did not sufficiently allege that Milliman exercised discretionary control over the plan's assets or administration, thus failing to establish fiduciary status. (5) The court held that without a plausible claim that Milliman was a fiduciary, the allegations of excessive fees and breach of fiduciary duty could not proceed.

Q: What are the key holdings in Healy v. Milliman, Inc.?

1. The court held that to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA, plaintiffs must plausibly allege that the defendant acted as a fiduciary. 2. The court held that merely providing services to an ERISA plan does not automatically make a service provider a fiduciary. 3. The court held that allegations that a defendant exercised discretionary control over plan assets or administration are necessary to establish fiduciary status under ERISA. 4. The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint did not sufficiently allege that Milliman exercised discretionary control over the plan's assets or administration, thus failing to establish fiduciary status. 5. The court held that without a plausible claim that Milliman was a fiduciary, the allegations of excessive fees and breach of fiduciary duty could not proceed.

Q: What cases are related to Healy v. Milliman, Inc.?

Precedent cases cited or related to Healy v. Milliman, Inc.: Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U.S. 409 (2014); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).

Q: What did the Ninth Circuit hold regarding Milliman's fiduciary status under ERISA?

The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that Milliman, Inc. acted as a fiduciary under ERISA. The court determined that the complaint did not sufficiently plead that Milliman exercised discretionary control over the plan's assets or administration.

Q: What specific legal standard did the court apply to determine if Milliman was a fiduciary?

The court applied the standard that to be an ERISA fiduciary, a person or entity must exercise discretionary control or authority over the plan's management, administration, or assets. The plaintiffs needed to plausibly allege such discretionary control to establish fiduciary status.

Q: Why did the plaintiffs' allegations of excessive fees fail in Healy v. Milliman, Inc.?

The allegations of excessive fees failed because they were predicated on Milliman acting as an ERISA fiduciary. Since the court found no plausible allegation of fiduciary status, there was no legal basis to support the claims of excessive fees or breach of fiduciary duty.

Q: What does it mean to 'plausibly allege' something in a legal complaint?

To 'plausibly allege' means that the facts stated in the complaint, if true, are sufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. In this case, the plaintiffs needed to provide specific facts showing Milliman's discretionary control, not just a formulaic recitation of ERISA's fiduciary requirements.

Q: Did the court analyze any specific provisions of ERISA in its decision?

While the summary doesn't detail specific ERISA sections, the court's analysis focused on the definition of an ERISA fiduciary, which is typically found in ERISA Section 3(21)(A) and related regulations. The core of the ruling was about whether Milliman met this definition through its alleged actions.

Q: What was the legal reasoning behind the dismissal of the excessive fee claim?

The legal reasoning was that an excessive fee claim under ERISA requires the defendant to be acting as a fiduciary. Because the plaintiffs could not plausibly plead that Milliman was a fiduciary, their claim that Milliman charged excessive fees in breach of fiduciary duty lacked a necessary legal foundation.

Q: Did the court consider whether Milliman provided services to the retirement plan?

Yes, the court acknowledged that Milliman provided services. However, the critical distinction was whether those services involved the exercise of discretionary control over plan assets or administration, which is the hallmark of an ERISA fiduciary.

Q: How does Healy v. Milliman, Inc. affect me?

This decision reinforces the heightened pleading standards for ERISA fiduciary claims, making it more difficult for plaintiffs to proceed with class actions against service providers without specific factual allegations of discretionary control over plan assets or administration. It clarifies that the mere provision of services does not automatically confer fiduciary status under ERISA. As a decision from a federal appellate court, its reach is national. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.

Q: What is the practical impact of the Healy v. Milliman, Inc. decision on retirement plan participants?

The practical impact is that retirement plan participants may have a more difficult time suing service providers like Milliman for excessive fees if they cannot clearly demonstrate that the provider acted as a fiduciary with discretionary control over the plan's assets or administration.

Q: How does this ruling affect companies that provide retirement plan services?

Companies providing retirement plan services may find it easier to avoid ERISA fiduciary liability if their contracts and operations do not involve discretionary control over plan assets or administration. This ruling reinforces the importance of clearly defining the scope of services and responsibilities.

Q: What should individuals do if they believe their retirement plan has excessive fees after this ruling?

Individuals who believe their retirement plan has excessive fees should consult with legal counsel specializing in ERISA. They would need to gather evidence demonstrating that a service provider exercised discretionary control over plan assets or administration, or explore other potential avenues for relief.

Q: What are the compliance implications for retirement plan administrators following Healy v. Milliman, Inc.?

The compliance implication is that administrators must be meticulous in documenting their roles and ensuring that any third-party service providers clearly understand and adhere to their defined responsibilities, particularly regarding discretionary authority, to avoid potential fiduciary claims.

Q: Could this ruling impact the types of services offered by retirement plan providers?

Potentially, yes. Providers might structure their services to explicitly avoid exercising discretionary control, thereby limiting their fiduciary exposure. This could lead to more clearly delineated service agreements and potentially fewer integrated service models.

Q: How does the Healy v. Milliman, Inc. decision fit into the broader legal landscape of ERISA litigation?

This decision fits into a long line of ERISA cases scrutinizing who qualifies as a fiduciary. It emphasizes the high bar plaintiffs must clear to establish fiduciary status, particularly against service providers whose roles might be seen as ministerial rather than discretionary.

Q: What legal doctrines or precedents likely influenced the Ninth Circuit's decision?

The decision was likely influenced by established ERISA precedent defining fiduciary status, such as cases interpreting 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A) and relevant Department of Labor regulations. These precedents consistently require a showing of discretionary authority or control.

Q: Are there landmark Supreme Court cases that define ERISA fiduciary duties that are relevant here?

Yes, landmark Supreme Court cases like 'F.H. Creighan v. Transamerica Occidental Life Ins. Co.' and 'Pegram v. Herdrich' have shaped the understanding of ERISA fiduciary duties. These cases often grapple with distinguishing between fiduciary and non-fiduciary roles in plan administration.

Q: What was the docket number in Healy v. Milliman, Inc.?

The docket number for Healy v. Milliman, Inc. is 24-3327. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can Healy v. Milliman, Inc. be appealed?

Potentially — decisions from federal appellate courts can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States via a petition for certiorari, though the Court accepts very few cases.

Q: How did the case reach the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals?

The case reached the Ninth Circuit on appeal after the district court dismissed the plaintiffs' putative class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal, leading to the Ninth Circuit's review and affirmation of that decision.

Q: What procedural posture was the case in when the Ninth Circuit ruled?

The case was before the Ninth Circuit on appeal from a district court's dismissal of the complaint. The district court had found that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, specifically regarding the fiduciary status of Milliman, Inc.

Q: What does it mean that the district court's dismissal was affirmed?

Affirming the dismissal means the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court's decision to throw out the case. The appellate court found no error in the lower court's ruling that the plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded a claim under ERISA.

Q: Were there any specific evidentiary issues discussed in the ruling?

The ruling focused on the sufficiency of the *pleadings* rather than specific evidence. The court determined that even if the facts alleged in the complaint were true, they did not meet the legal threshold to establish fiduciary status, meaning no evidence was needed to reach this conclusion at the dismissal stage.