Court Denies Widow's Bid for $250K Life Benefits
A federal judge in Michigan rejected a surviving spouse's claim for additional life insurance after the employer's plan limited the deceased worker's coverage to $50,000.
Updated on Nov. 6, 2026 in Insurance
Live Poll
Do you trust employers to accurately explain your benefits options?
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied a surviving spouse's claim for an additional $250,000 in life insurance benefits under an ERISA plan. The court found the plan's terms unambiguously barred the employee from electing the $300,000 coverage he had chosen.
Why it matters
The ruling reinforces that clear plan terms generally control under ERISA, even when a worker believed he had elected higher coverage and premiums were deducted from his pay. It also shows that fiduciary-duty claims seeking monetary recovery from an employer's general assets may not succeed.
The 15-page opinion in Thomas v. UACJ Automotive Whitehall Industries, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 03-111335) found the plan unambiguously prohibited the $300,000 election. The employee's salary made him ineligible for the maximum coverage, leaving him enrolled at $50,000.
The players
UACJ Automotive Whitehall Industries, Inc.
The employer whose ERISA-governed life insurance plan limited the deceased employee's coverage to $50,000 and was the defendant in the suit.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan
The federal court that issued the 15-page opinion denying the surviving spouse's claim for additional life insurance benefits.
The details
The plaintiff alleged the employer misled the employee into believing he had elected $300,000 in coverage and failed to tell him he was ineligible, even though premiums for that amount were withheld from his paycheck. After an earlier breach-of-fiduciary-duty theory failed, the amended complaint sought plan benefits and statutory penalties for the employer's failure to provide requested documents, but the court found no prejudice and no basis to modify the plan's terms.
Timeline
- Employee elected $300,000 in coverage while employed by the defendant (date unknown).
- Court opinion denying the surviving spouse's claim was published November 6, 2026.
Legal Context
The decision applies the ERISA principle that unambiguous plan terms control benefit determinations, a framework that has long limited employees' ability to rely on informal enrollment assurances. It also reflects the restricted scope of equitable relief against employers under ERISA's fiduciary provisions.
Workers who elect life insurance through an employer plan should confirm the coverage amount shown on their enrollment statements, since the plan's written terms can override what a worker believes was selected. Premium deductions alone do not establish that the chosen coverage level was approved.
The takeaway
Review your employer life insurance enrollment confirmation to verify the exact coverage amount, because premium withholding does not guarantee the coverage level you chose was approved.
Further reading
Explore more on Insurance to see how group life coverage and employer plan elections work.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Michigan Lawyers Weekly.
Live Poll
Do you trust employers to accurately explain your benefits options?
