Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Novella v. Westchester County

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureClass certificationStatute of limitationsERISARule 23numerositytypicalityadequacy

Facts

Novella worked in covered employment under the defendant pension fund from 1962 to 1981 and again from 1987 to 1995, but had a break in Westchester-covered service from 1982 to 1986. After a disabling workplace injury in 1995, he received a Disability Pension, but the fund calculated his monthly benefit using the 1981 rate for credits earned from 1962 to 1981 and the 1995 rate for credits earned from 1987 to 1995. The fund justified the two-rate calculation by reference to provisions governing Deferred Pensions and later invoked another plan provision in litigation. Novella sued under ERISA on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of pensioners allegedly affected by the same two-rate practice.

Issue

Whether the fund could lawfully calculate Novella's Disability Pension using two different per-credit rates based on his break in service, whether the district court properly certified a class of disability pensioners, and when ERISA miscalculation claims accrue for statute-of-limitations purposes. The court also considered whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest.

Rule

A claim for miscalculation of pension benefits under ERISA accrues when the pensioner knew or should have known that his benefits were miscalculated. A plaintiff seeking class certification must satisfy all Rule 23 requirements by a preponderance of the evidence, and individualized accrual inquiries may bear on numerosity and typicality. Prejudgment interest and its rate are committed to the district court's broad discretion.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, Lila Moreno began receiving disability pension payments from Lakefront Trades Retirement Plan in 2014. Her award letter included a chart showing that credits earned before a four-year break were valued at $22 each and later credits at $41 each, and the letter explained the arithmetic used to reach her monthly payment. She did not contact the plan until 2022, when the trustees rejected her complaint as untimely.

When did Lila's ERISA miscalculation claim most likely accrue?

Explanation. The majority adopted a discovery-based accrual rule for ERISA pension-miscalculation claims: accrual occurs when the pensioner knew or should have known of the miscalculation. It rejected the rule that accrual waits until the beneficiary challenges the calculation and is rebuffed, and it did not adopt a continuing-violation theory based on each monthly check. Because Lila received a letter clearly showing the two-rate calculation and enough information to understand it, her claim most likely accrued in 2014. (Derived from Novella v. Westchester County (n.d.).)