Carl Kleinfeldt participated in an employer-sponsored retirement plan administered by the Packaging Corporation of America. He originally designated his wife, Dená Langdon, as the primary beneficiary. After they divorced in 2022, Kleinfeldt sent a fax to the plan's benefits center requesting the removal of his former spouse from his retirement accounts. However, the plan administrator only updated her status to 'ex-spouse' rather than removing her entirely. When Kleinfeldt died in 2023, a dispute arose between Langdon, who was still listed as the primary beneficiary, and the estate of Kleinfeldt's sister, Terry Scholz, who was the contingent beneficiary. The plan administrator filed an interpleader action to resolve the competing claims. The district court, invoking the substantial compliance doctrine, ruled sua sponte that Kleinfeldt's fax was sufficient to remove Langdon, granting the funds to Scholz's estate. Langdon appealed this decision.
The Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo, focusing on whether Kleinfeldt's actions satisfied the federal common law doctrine of substantial compliance. The court first addressed the argument that the Supreme Court's decision in Kennedy v. Plan Administrator vitiated this doctrine. The court reasoned that Kennedy primarily protects plan administrators who rely on plan documents to avoid double liability. In this interpleader action, the administrator had not made a final determination on the beneficiary status but had instead frozen the funds and let the courts decide. Therefore, the administrative concerns central to Kennedy were not implicated, and the substantial compliance doctrine remained viable. Next, the court applied the two-part test for substantial compliance: the participant must (1) evidence intent to change the beneficiary and (2) undertake positive action that is for all practical purposes similar to the plan's required procedures. While the court agreed that Kleinfeldt clearly evidenced his intent to remove Langdon via the fax, it found he failed the second prong. The plan documents explicitly instructed participants to contact the benefits center by phone or update beneficiaries online. Unlike previous cases where participants completed forms with minor clerical errors or failed to sign a form they had otherwise filled out, Kleinfeldt did not attempt to use the prescribed methods at all. He sent a fax, a method not authorized by the plan, and even requested that the plan fax him paperwork to complete the process, indicating he understood further steps were needed. The court concluded that deviating from the plan's specific procedures was not a mere 'careless error' but a material failure to comply, meaning the original designation remained valid.
The judgment is reversed and remanded for the entry of judgment in favor of Dená Langdon as the primary beneficiary. This decision reinforces the strict adherence to plan documents in ERISA beneficiary disputes, signaling that informal attempts to change beneficiaries, such as faxes, will not override explicit plan procedures unless the participant has taken positive steps that are functionally equivalent to the required forms. It leaves open the question of whether the substantial compliance doctrine applies when an administrator has made a final determination, but confirms its continued utility in interpleader scenarios.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download