MARK L. JUSTMAN, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Karen A. Justman v. Accenture Llp

PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 25-2084
____________
MARK L. JUSTMAN, Individually and as Executor of the
Estate of Karen A. Justman,
Appellant
v.
ACCENTURE LLP; PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 2:24-cv-04107)
District Judge: Honorable Gail A. Weilheimer
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
June 8, 2026
Before: HARDIMAN, BOVE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: June 17, 2026)

-- 1 of 14 --

2
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.
This appeal arises under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Appellant Mark
Justman sued his late wife’s employer, Accenture LLP, for
denial of life insurance benefits. But Accenture had no
authority over benefit determinations. So it was not a proper
defendant for Justman’s wrongful denial of benefits claim
under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B). We will therefore affirm the
District Court’s order dismissing Justman’s Second Amended
Complaint.
I
Karen A. Justman became ill after eating raw oysters
and died a week later from septic shock caused by vibrio
vulnificus bacterium. At the time of her untimely death in
August 2021, Ms. Justman worked for Accenture LLP in the
contract management section and was enrolled in a life
insurance plan offered by the company. Her plan included
“basic” accidental life insurance coverage equal to her salary
and additional “optional” accidental death and dismemberment
(AD&D) coverage of three times her salary. Ms. Justman
designated her husband Mark as the beneficiary.
Accenture prepared a summary plan description (SPD)
of its life insurance and AD&D plans. The 2020 and 2021
SPDs identified Accenture as the Plan Administrator. The
Claims Administrators for those years were MetLife (2020)

-- 2 of 14 --

3
and Prudential Insurance Company of America (2021). Both
SPDs explained that the basic life insurance and optional
AD&D plans “pay benefits to your beneficiary (ies) if you die
or are seriously injured while covered by the plans.” App. 77,
94. The SPDs further explained that “[i]f you die as a result of
an accident, as determined by the Claims Administrator, your
beneficiary will receive” benefits from the basic life insurance
and optional AD&D plans. App. 77, 94 (emphasis added).
According to the SPDs, benefits would “be paid only if the Plan
Administrator and/or Claims Administrator decide in its
discretion that the claimant is entitled to them.” App. 75, 92.
The SPDs also delineated the roles of the Plan and
Claims Administrators. As Plan Administrator, Accenture was
“responsible for formulating and carrying out all rules and
regulations necessary to administer the Plan and ha[d] the sole
discretionary authority to make decisions regarding eligibility
of employees and participants in each Plan.” App. 75, 92. In
2021, the year at issue, Accenture designated Prudential as
Claims Administrator and “delegated” to it “the discretionary
authority to make decisions regarding the interpretation or
application of Plan provisions” and “to determine all questions,
including factual determinations, as to the rights and benefits
of employees and participants under each Plan.” App. 92.
Consistent with that arrangement, Justman submitted a
claim for both basic accidental and optional accidental life
insurance benefits to Prudential. The claim was denied because
Ms. Justman died of a “medical illness and/or sickness” and
not an “Accidental Injury . . . as the direct result of an
Accident.” App. 121. Justman pursued an administrative
appeal through Prudential’s internal process but fared no
better.

-- 3 of 14 --

4
Justman then sued Prudential and Accenture in the
District Court. Prudential settled out, so only the claims against
Accenture are pertinent to this appeal. As relevant here,
Justman alleged that Accenture wrongly denied his benefits
claim under ERISA § 502(a)(1) and breached its fiduciary
duties to his wife by failing to furnish her with the SPDs.
The District Court dismissed Justman’s claims without
prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. According to the District Court, Justman did not
state a claim for wrongful denial of benefits under ERISA
§ 502(a)(1) because he did not allege facts demonstrating that
“Accenture controlled the claims administration of benefits.”
Justman v. Accenture LLP, 2024 WL 4631646, at *7 (E.D. Pa.
Oct. 30, 2024). It also held that Justman failed to state a
plausible claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA
§§ 502(a)(2) or (a)(3). He alleged that Accenture provided the
2020 SPD to Ms. Justman and “may or may not have” provided
the 2021 SPD to her, but did not explain how that allegation
constituted a breach of fiduciary duty. App. 267.
After receiving the District Court’s dismissal order,
Justman filed an amended complaint alleging that he had no
record of Ms. Justman receiving the 2021 SPD and that
Accenture either failed to provide it to her or wrongly supplied
the 2020 SPD instead. The District Court again dismissed his
claims, holding that Justman pleaded no facts connecting
Accenture to his benefits denial, and that his breach of
fiduciary duty claim based on the failure to furnish the proper
SPDs was conclusory. The Court also ordered Accenture to
provide certifications regarding “dates and means of disclosing
the 2020 and 2021 [SPDs]” to Justman’s late wife “so as to
allow” Justman to amend. App. 260. Accenture complied and
produced that information.

-- 4 of 14 --

5
Justman then moved to file a Second Amended
Complaint. His proposed Second Amended Complaint alleged
that Accenture never provided the 2020 or 2021 SPDs to his
wife and that Prudential advised Accenture of its denial of his
claim via a letter, attached to the complaint, that invited
Accenture to call a 1-800 number if it had questions. He also
added a request for equitable relief under ERISA § 502(a)(3).
The District Court denied leave to file the Second
Amended Complaint. The wrongful denial of benefits claim
failed because the letter from Prudential implied that
Accenture was not involved in the claim decision. The Court
also determined that Justman’s SPD “allegations fail[ed] to
state a claim for improper notice.” App. 3 n.1. The proposed
Second Amended Complaint was “devoid of any facts at all
from which [the District Court] could conclude or reasonably
infer as to either SPD” that the statutory deadline to provide
them to Justman’s wife had passed. Id. Justman moved for
reconsideration, but the District Court denied that motion too.
Justman timely appealed the Court’s order denying
leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, denying his motion
for reconsideration, and dismissing his case with prejudice.
II1
Justman’s ERISA claims against Accenture fall into two
1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331
and 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1) and (f). We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review denial of leave to amend a complaint for failure to
state claim de novo. Mullin v. Balicki, 875 F.3d 140, 150 (3d

-- 5 of 14 --

6
categories: (1) the benefit denial claim; and (2) the SPD claim.
Neither claim is plausible. Because further amendment would
be futile, the District Court did not err in denying Justman’s
motion for leave to file his Second Amended Complaint. See
Mullin v. Balicki, 875 F.3d 140, 150 (3d Cir. 2017).
A
ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) creates a cause of action for “a
participant or beneficiary” to “recover benefits due to him
under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms
of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the
terms of the plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). “The statute
plainly spells out who may bring this claim—a plan
‘participant’ or ‘beneficiary’—but it does not specify who may
be sued.” Larson v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., 723 F.3d 905,
913 (7th Cir. 2013).
Justman argues that Accenture is a proper defendant for
his denial of benefits claim because it had the authority to make
benefits determinations (rather than, or in addition to,
Prudential). But a plausible suit for “benefits due” must be
brought against a party with an obligation to pay. See 29 U.S.C.
§ 1132(a)(1)(B). Sometimes that will be the plan, and
sometimes that will be the insurance company that adjudicates
claims. The latter is the case here: “Prudential must be given
written proof of the loss including any requested
documentation,” and benefits will be paid “when Prudential
Cir. 2017). We review dismissal of a complaint with prejudice
for abuse of discretion. Cook v. GameStop, Inc., 148 F.4th 153,
157 (3d Cir. 2025). We review denial of a motion for
reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Lazaridis v. Wehmer,
591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010).

-- 6 of 14 --

7
receives written proof of the loss.” App. 66. The plan does not
confer Accenture any authority over claims administration, and
Justman does not provide evidence plausibly suggesting
otherwise. So Accenture is not a proper defendant for his denial
of benefits claim, and the District Court was right to dismiss
under Rule 12(b)(6).
In holding that the proper defendant in an ERISA
§ 502(a)(1)(B) claim is one who controls benefits
determinations, we align ourselves with five other circuits. See,
e.g., Larson, 723 F.3d at 913; Brown v. J.B. Hunt Transp.
Servs., Inc., 586 F.3d 1079, 1081, 1088 (8th Cir. 2009); Moore
v. Lafayette Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 416, 438 (6th Cir. 2006);
Heffner v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala., Inc., 443 F.3d
1330, 1333–34 (11th Cir. 2006); Musmeci v. Schwegmann
Giant Super Mkts., Inc., 332 F.3d 339, 349 (5th Cir. 2003).
Two other circuits have explained that those who exercise
control over benefit determinations are the appropriate
defendants in ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) claims, and their
reasoning also supports our conclusion here. See New York
State Psychiatric Ass’n, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Grp., 798 F.3d
125, 132 (2d Cir. 2015); Cyr v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co.,
642 F.3d 1202, 1205–07 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). Our holding
also tracks a previous panel decision in our Court, Evans v.
Emp. Benefit Plan, Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., 311 F.
App’x 556 (3d Cir. 2009), which explained that “[e]xercising
control over the administration of benefits is the defining
feature of the proper defendant” in ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B)
claims. Id. at 558.
The District Court provided Justman the opportunity to
re-plead facts that supported his theory that Accenture was
involved in the claim decision after Justman had the chance to
review the administrative record. But Justman’s Second

-- 7 of 14 --

8
Amended Complaint highlighted only a single document from
that record: an April 26, 2022 letter from Prudential to
Accenture noting the AD&D claim denial and offering a 1-800
number to call if Accenture had questions. This addition to
Justman’s pleading, however, did not plausibly allege any
involvement by Accenture in the AD&D claim decision. As the
District Court observed, if anything, the letter confirmed that
Prudential, not Accenture, called the shots: Prudential made
the benefits determination, and Accenture could follow up if it
had questions.
Justman also argues that Accenture retained authority to
make benefit determinations based on language in the SPDs
that states “[b]enefits under the Plans will be paid only if the
Plan Administrator and/or Claims Administrator decide in its
discretion that the claimant is entitled to them.” App. 75, 92.
But to the extent Justman relies on the 2020 and 2021 SPDs,
they are not the terms of the plan. As the Supreme Court
explained in CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U.S. 421 (2011),
SPDs “provide communication with beneficiaries about the
plan, but . . . their statements do not themselves constitute the
terms of the plan for purposes of [ERISA] § 502(a)(1)(B).” Id.
at 438.
Moreover, the SPD language Justman highlights shows
only that, depending on the issue at hand, either Accenture or
Prudential may have a particular plan responsibility. More
detailed language on that same page later states: “Plan
Administrator [Accenture] has delegated authority to the
Prudential Insurance Company of America to provide claim
processing, claim investigation, claim control, and the daily
administration of the plan.” App. 92. These two provisions are
not inconsistent. Accenture has authority for limited issues like
eligibility (i.e., who is covered by the plan). See id.

-- 8 of 14 --

9
(“Accenture is responsible for formulating and carrying out all
rules and regulations necessary to administer the Plan and has
sole discretionary authority to make decisions regarding
eligibility of employees and participants in each Plan.”). But
the language in the Group Policy and SPDs consistently states
that Prudential is the Claims Administrator and has authority
to process and decide claims.
Because Accenture delegated claims administration
duties to Prudential, Prudential was the proper defendant for
Justman’s denial of benefits claim. Justman therefore has no
ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) claim against Accenture, and the
District Court did not err in dismissing the case with prejudice
or in denying him leave to amend.
B
Justman’s SPD claim fares no better. Whether
construed as a failure to provide required plan documents claim
under ERISA § 104(b)(1) or a breach of fiduciary duty claim
under ERISA § 404, Justman’s Second Amended Complaint
failed to plausibly state a claim upon which relief could be
granted.
1
ERISA § 104(b)(1) specifies that plans must provide
participants and beneficiaries with an SPD within 90 days of
enrollment. 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(1)(A). And ERISA § 102
specifies that SPDs must “be written in a manner calculated to
be understood by the average plan participant” and “reasonably
apprise such participants and beneficiaries of their rights and
obligations under the plan.” Id. § 1022(a). If the plan is
amended, the plan administrator must furnish an updated SPD

-- 9 of 14 --

10
every five years. Id.2 But if the plan amendment involves a
“modification or change” described in ERISA § 102, such as
“the name and address of the administrator,” the administrator
must furnish an updated SPD “not later than 210 days after the
end of the plan year in which the change is adopted.” 29 U.S.C.
§§ 1022, 1024(b)(1). On the other hand, if the “modification or
change” involves “a material reduction in covered services or
benefits provided under a group health plan,” the updated SPD
must be furnished “not later than 60 days after the date of the
adoption.” Id. § 1024(b)(1).3
Justman did not plead facts that would support a claim
against Accenture under ERISA § 104(b)(1) for failure to
provide an SPD. His Second Amended Complaint does not
indicate whether his wife received an SPD when she started
employment at Accenture, when the five-year deadline arose
for Accenture to provide her another SPD, or if a material
modification occurred in either 2020 or 2021. And even if the
change from MetLife to Prudential on January 1, 2021 was a
material modification, assuming the plan year ran with the
calendar year, the notice of that change in an updated SPD
2 When no amendments have been made, the administrator
must furnish an updated SPD every ten years. 29 U.S.C.
§ 1024(b)(1).
3 ERISA § 104(b)(4) requires plans to provide SPDs and other
ERISA documents to plan participants at their request. 29
U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4). And ERISA § 502(c)(1) permits liability
against an administrator for failure to provide certain plan
documents. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c). But Justman does not allege
his wife requested the 2020 or 2021 SPDs, so ERISA
§ 104(b)(4) is not relevant here.

-- 10 of 14 --

11
would not have been due until July 2022. See 29 U.S.C.
§ 1024(b)(1). But Ms. Justman died on August 28, 2021, long
before that due date.4 So the District Court did not err in
denying Justman leave to amend his SPD claim a second time.
2
Justman’s SPD allegations do not state a claim for a
breach of fiduciary duty either. Justman alleges that Accenture
breached its fiduciary duties as Plan Administrator for its
purported failure to provide Ms. Justman with the correct
SPDs.5 A breach of fiduciary duty claim under ERISA § 404
4 The District Court’s order stated that 270 days after the end
of the plan year was the relevant deadline. As should be
evident, this was a misstatement of ERISA § 104(b)’s timing
requirements; the statute specifies 210 days. 29 U.S.C.
§ 1024(b).
The Court also measured incorrectly from January 1, 2020 to
determine when notice of a material change was due.
Prudential took over AD&D benefits from another insurer as
of January 1, 2021. Assuming a calendar year plan year, the
notice of that change in an updated SPD would have been due
on July 29, 2022, not September 27, 2022. Nevertheless, the
Court was correct to conclude that Justman had not pleaded
facts that, if true, would have established that notice was due
to Ms. Justman before her death under the statute.
5 Somewhat confusingly, Justman invokes ERISA § 502(a)(3),
which allows a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary “to obtain
other appropriate equitable relief” to redress violations of the
plan or ERISA generally. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). But the legal
standard he recites originates from ERISA § 404, which

-- 11 of 14 --

12
requires that the plaintiff establish: “(1) the defendant was
acting in a fiduciary capacity; (2) the defendant made
affirmative misrepresentations or failed to adequately inform
plan participants and beneficiaries; (3) the misrepresentation or
inadequate disclosure was material; and (4) the plaintiff
detrimentally relied on the misrepresentation or inadequate
disclosure.” In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Med. Benefits ERISA
Litig., 579 F.3d 220, 228–29 (3d Cir. 2009) (citation modified);
see also 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1). Justman did not allege that
Accenture’s failure to provide his late wife with the relevant
SPDs deprived her of any information, or even if it had, how
that deprivation was material. Nor did Justman show that he
relied on the 2020 or 2021 SPDs: he did not allege the SPDs
helped or harmed his claim with Prudential, or that either he or
Prudential relied on them in their AD&D claim dispute.
Indeed, even without receiving the SPDs, Justman managed to
file an insurance claim with Prudential.6
Justman contends that detrimental reliance is not
required for ERISA § 404 “misrepresentation claims in which”
the plaintiff seeks plan “reformation and surcharge” under
ERISA § 502(a)(3). Justman Br. 24. He says he needs to show
only actual harm. Even so, Justman’s claim still fails; he does
not satisfy the other elements. In any case, Justman did not
outlines a plan’s fiduciary duties. We will assess Justman’s
claim under that standard.
6 Justman argues he suffered “harm” because the AD&D
benefits were not paid. Justman Br. 26. This “harm” is not
related to the SPDs because, as noted above, Justman does not
claim anyone relied on the SPDs in the AD&D claim dispute
with Prudential.

-- 12 of 14 --

13
allege any harm, let alone actual harm stemming from
Accenture’s alleged failure to provide Ms. Justman with the
2020 or 2021 SPD.
III
Justman’s remaining arguments lack merit. He first
argues that the District Court abused its discretion in denying
his motion for reconsideration. But Justman’s motion failed to
identify an intervening change in law, new evidence uncovered
since the denial of leave to file the Second Amended
Complaint, or the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent
manifest injustice. See Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669
(3d Cir. 2010); Herrera v. Agents of Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob.
& Parole, 132 F.4th 248, 254 n.5 (3d Cir. 2025). So the District
Court properly denied his motion to reconsider (and certainly
did not abuse its discretion).
Similarly, Justman contends that the District Court
abused its discretion in dismissing his claims with prejudice.
But as explained above, Justman’s claims were not plausibly
pleaded. Because further amendment would be futile, the
District Court did not err. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp.,
293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).
* * *
For the stated reasons, we will affirm the District
Court’s orders denying leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint, denying reconsideration, and dismissing with
prejudice.

-- 13 of 14 --

14
Roman J. Koropey
T IMONEY KNOX
Counsel for Appellant
Nathan T. Boone
Danielle K. Herring
L ITTLER MENDELSON
Counsel for Appellee Accenture LLP

-- 14 of 14 --