Robert Montanile, a participant in the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan, was seriously injured by a drunk driver. The Plan paid approximately $121,044 for his medical care. The Plan document contained a standard reimbursement and subrogation clause requiring repayment from any third-party recovery. Montanile later settled his third-party tort case for roughly $500,000. The Plan, through its Board of Trustees, asserted a lien and negotiated with Montanile over reimbursement. When negotiations stalled, Montanile's attorney notified the Plan that the remaining settlement funds would be released to Montanile unless the Plan initiated legal action. The Plan did not immediately seek injunctive relief to preserve the fund, and the attorney disbursed the money. After several months, the Plan sued Montanile in federal court under ERISA § 502(a)(3) to enforce the reimbursement provision. By then, Montanile had spent a significant portion of the settlement on ordinary living expenses, allegedly leaving no identifiable settlement proceeds. The district court granted summary judgment for the Plan, permitting recovery from Montanile's general assets, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Under ERISA § 502(a)(3), may a plan fiduciary enforce a reimbursement provision by obtaining equitable relief against a participant's general assets after the participant has dissipated specifically identifiable settlement funds on nontraceable expenses?
Section 502(a)(3) authorizes only appropriate equitable relief. A plan fiduciary may enforce an equitable lien by agreement or other equitable remedy only against specifically identifiable funds or property in the defendant's possession. If the specific fund to which the lien attached has been dissipated on nontraceable items, equity does not permit recovery from the defendant's general assets under § 502(a)(3).
No. When a participant dissipates the specifically identifiable settlement funds on nontraceable items, an ERISA fiduciary cannot enforce a reimbursement provision against the participant's general assets under § 502(a)(3). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
The Court, per Justice Thomas, grounded its analysis in the historical distinction between legal and equitable remedies incorporated into § 502(a)(3). Equitable relief, such as an equitable lien or constructive trust, traditionally permitted a claimant to recover particular funds or property in the defendant's possession. Equity allowed tracing into substitutes when the proceeds were converted into specific, identifiable property. But when the funds were dissipated on nontraceable items, equity did not authorize a personal money judgment against general assets; such a judgment was legal, not equitable. Applying that framework, the Court explained that an equitable lien by agreement (recognized in Sereboff) may attach when a participant obtains a specific fund (for example, a tort settlement) that the plan is entitled to recoup. In Sereboff, the fiduciary recovered because the identifiable settlement proceeds remained in the participants' possession, segregated and subject to a lien. By contrast, in Great-West, the defendant no longer possessed the relevant funds, and the fiduciary's claim sought to impose personal liability, which was legal in nature and barred by § 502(a)(3). Montanile fell between those poles: although the lien attached when the settlement was received, the participant later spent most of the proceeds on everyday expenses. Because the relevant money could no longer be tied to an identifiable fund or traceable asset, the fiduciary's request to satisfy the lien from general assets sought legal, not equitable, relief, and was therefore not authorized by § 502(a)(3). The Court rejected policy arguments that limiting recovery would invite gamesmanship. ERISA fiduciaries possess tools to protect their interests: they can promptly sue for injunctive relief to freeze funds, seek a temporary restraining order, or demand segregation of settlement proceeds. The risk that a participant might spend the money before suit is not a reason to expand the statutory grant of equitable relief. The Court also clarified that US Airways v. McCutchen does not change the outcome: while plan terms govern the scope of reimbursement rights as between the parties, those terms cannot enlarge the category of remedies available under § 502(a)(3) beyond traditional equity. Finally, the Court remanded for fact-finding on whether any portion of the settlement remained traceable in Montanile's possession; if so, the fiduciary might enforce its lien against that portion, but not against undifferentiated general assets. Justice Ginsburg dissented, urging that the Court's remedial constraints permit participants to evade clear contractual repayment obligations and suggesting that Great-West should be reconsidered. The majority, however, adhered to the statute's text and equity's historical limits.
Montanile cements the tracing requirement for ERISA § 502(a)(3) reimbursement claims. It teaches that plan language alone does not guarantee recovery; fiduciaries must locate and identify the specific fund or traceable property still in the participant's hands. Practically, the case pushes plans to act swiftly—seeking TROs, preliminary injunctions, and segregation orders—to prevent dissipation. Doctrinally, it harmonizes Great-West, Sereboff, and McCutchen: ERISA authorizes only equitable relief; equitable liens by agreement are enforceable against identifiable funds; plan terms control the parties' substantive rights but cannot transform a barred legal remedy into an authorized equitable one. For students, Montanile is a prime example of statutory interpretation through the lens of historical equity and of how remedial law shapes litigation outcomes.
Montanile underscores that ERISA's remedial scheme channels fiduciaries into historically equitable remedies and that those remedies depend on the continued existence of identifiable funds. A plan may create an equitable lien by agreement, but enforcement turns on whether settlement proceeds remain in the participant's possession or can be traced into specific assets.