Inquiry-Triggered Fiduciary Duty and Ministerial Exception under ERISA: LeBoeuf v. Entergy

Introduction

LeBoeuf v. Entergy, 24-30583 (5th Cir. May 1, 2025), arises from an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) dispute over the proper beneficiary of a deceased participant’s retirement account. Alvin Martinez (“Decedent”) participated in Entergy Corporation’s defined-contribution Retirement Savings Plan. In 2010, Martinez designated his four children as beneficiaries. Under ERISA § 402(a)(2) (29 U.S.C. § 1055(a)(2)), a designation is automatically revoked if the participant later marries and fails to secure a spousal—or “surviving spouse”—waiver. Eleven years after his initial designation, Martinez remarried, but never executed a new waiver. He continued to receive quarterly statements from the Plan Trustee (T. Rowe Price) reflecting the children as his beneficiaries. Upon Martinez’s death in 2021, the Claims Committee directed distribution to his second wife, Kathleen Mire, pursuant to ERISA’s default rule. The children (Appellants) sued in federal court, alleging (1) breach of fiduciary duty by Entergy and T. Rowe Price for “misleading” quarterly statements and (2) breach by the Plan Administrator (Entergy’s Employee Benefits Committee). The District Court dismissed for failure to state a claim and ruled that neither Entergy nor T. Rowe Price were ERISA fiduciaries, and that the Committee had fully complied with its duty. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit’s per curiam opinion held:

Entergy and T. Rowe Price are not “ERISA fiduciaries,” because neither was named as a fiduciary in the Plan Instrument nor exercised “discretionary authority” over Plan management or assets (29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A)). The Trustee’s preparation and mailing of quarterly statements are purely “ministerial functions” under DOL Reg. 29 C.F.R. § 2509.75-8 and do not confer fiduciary status.
The Employee Benefits Committee (the Committee), while a recognized fiduciary, did not breach its duty. Decedent received unambiguous notice of the surviving-spouse rule in (a) the Plan Document, (b) a summary plan description issued annually at least nine times, and (c) his own beneficiary-designation form (which expressly warned that subsequent marriage would void prior designations unless a waiver was executed). Absent any inquiry by Martinez, ERISA fiduciary duty does not require affirmative re-notification or proactive disclosure beyond what the official documents provided. Quarterly statements that tracked the participant’s own designation cannot override clear plan terms.
Because Appellants had neither alleged an inquiry by the participant nor shown conflicting language in the governing plan instrument, they failed to state a plausible breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim. Judgment of dismissal was affirmed.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211 (2000): Defined ERISA fiduciary status as contingent on (a) designation in a plan instrument or (b) exercise of discretionary control over plan management or assets.
Humana Health Plan, Inc. v. Nguyen, 785 F.3d 1023 (5th Cir. 2015): Reinforced that fiduciary status depends on the specific role and discretionary authority exercised “as relevant to the claim at hand.”
Switzer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 52 F.3d 1294 (5th Cir. 1995): Held that absent a participant-initiated inquiry, administrators have no duty to clarify potential confusion about plan terms. Duty to inform arises only after an inquiry.
Mello v. Sara Lee Corp., 431 F.3d 440 (5th Cir. 2005): In ERISA estoppel context, informal materials cannot override clear, unambiguous terms in official plan documents.
McDonald v. Provident Indem. Life Ins. Co., 60 F.3d 234 (5th Cir. 1995): Established that an ERISA breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim requires proof of (a) breach of duty under the “prudent person” standard and (b) plan loss.
29 C.F.R. § 2509.75-8: DOL regulation specifying that ministerial tasks (e.g., report preparation and distribution) do not create fiduciary status.

2. Legal Reasoning

The opinion rests on two pillars:

Definition of ERISA fiduciary (29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(21)(A), 1102(a)(2)). Only named fiduciaries or those with actual, discretionary control bear fiduciary duties. The Trustee’s role was limited to “investment and safekeeping” and “ministerial” reporting. Appellants made bare, conclusory allegations of discretion over “format and content” of quarterly statements but cited no plan provision or fact supporting discretionary authority. The court applied DOL guidance to reject these arguments.
Scope of fiduciary duty to inform. ERISA does not obligate plan administrators to proactively identify and correct every possible participant misunderstanding. Under Switzer, fiduciary duty to respond arises only upon participant inquiry. Martinez never asked, and he had clear written notice in multiple official plan documents and his own form of the surviving-spouse rule. Quarterly statements reflecting his children as beneficiaries merely tracked his earlier election. Under Mello, such informal communications cannot override clear plan terms. Appellants therefore failed to establish a material misrepresentation or a plausible detrimental reliance.

3. Impact

The Fifth Circuit’s decision clarifies two important ERISA principles:

Plan service providers who perform ministerial tasks—like preparing or mailing statements—are not ERISA fiduciaries merely by virtue of those tasks. Plans and trustees can rely on DOL Reg. § 2509.75-8 to define the “ministerial exception.”
ERISA fiduciary duty to inform plan participants is reactive, not proactive. Administrators need not re-publish buried boilerplate in every periodic statement when the official plan documents and participant’s own forms convey unambiguous notice of critical rules—unless and until a participant asks for clarification.

Future litigants will face a high burden: they must—at the pleading stage—show that a defendant not only had discretionary control or affirmative miscommunication but also that the participant in fact inquired or that the plan’s official terms were ambiguous or conflicting.

Complex Concepts Simplified

ERISA Fiduciary: Someone named in the plan document or who makes substantive, discretionary decisions about the plan’s operation or assets. Simply mailing statements is not enough.
Discretionary Authority: The power to choose or decide on plan policy, investment, or communications content. If the plan document assigns communications to the Committee, the sponsor or trustee cannot claim additional discretion without support.
Ministerial Functions: Routine tasks—like printing and mailing statements—that do not require judgment calls. DOL regulations say those tasks do not make an entity a fiduciary.
Surviving-Spouse Rule (ERISA § 402(a)(2)): A participant’s beneficiary designation is automatically revoked by a subsequent marriage unless the new spouse formally waives her right in writing.
Plan Document vs. Summary Plan Description (SPD): The Plan Document is the official, controlling text. SPDs summarize key provisions for lay participants. Both carry fiduciary weight if accurate and consistent.
Participant Inquiry Rule (Switzer): Administrators must respond accurately when a participant asks about plan terms—but they need not voluntarily re-state every detail without a query.

Conclusion

LeBoeuf v. Entergy stands as a pivotal clarification of ERISA’s fiduciary framework. It underscores that:

Erisa fiduciary status requires more than nominal or clerical involvement; actual discretionary control is essential.
Fiduciary duty to disclose plan terms is triggered by participant inquiry, not by the mere possibility of confusion.
Official plan documents and participant-signed forms govern; periodic statements cannot contradict unambiguous plan provisions.

For plan sponsors, administrators, and trustees, the decision offers reassurance: provide clear, accurate plan instruments and summary descriptions, respond promptly to participant questions, and rely on DOL’s ministerial-function guidance to limit unintended fiduciary exposure.