An ERISA plan’s deadline for filing a lawsuit is a powerful defense—but only if your plan can actually use it. Burying it in the plan document, or even spelling it out in the summary plan description (SPD), may not be enough. A recent federal appeals court decision is a pointed reminder to check what participants are actually told when their claims are denied.
A Later Disclosure Did Not Save the Deadline
In Phillips v. Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust, decided September 29, 2026, the Tenth Circuit refused to enforce a pension plan’s two-year lawsuit deadline. The initial denial letters omitted it. The appeal-denial letters disclosed it, but those letters had other deficiencies, including failing to identify the pertinent plan provision supporting the benefit denial. The defendants did not challenge those deficiencies, and the court rejected their argument that the later letters cured the initial omissions.
The court did not decide whether a properly drafted appeal letter could cure an earlier omission. The practical takeaway is straightforward: disclose the lawsuit deadline in the initial denial, repeat it in the appeal decision, and make sure both letters satisfy the other claims requirements. Timing matters too—the First Circuit has suggested that a later disclosure can cure an earlier omission but only if it still leaves the participant enough time to file suit. (Santana-Diaz)
An SPD Is Not a Substitute for the Denial Notice
The First, Third, and Sixth Circuits have also declined to enforce contractual lawsuit deadlines omitted from denial notices. (Santana-Diaz,Mirza, and Moyer) The First Circuit expressly rejected the argument that disclosure elsewhere in plan documents excused the omission. Administrators should therefore not assume that a participant’s receipt of a summary plan description (SPD) containing the deadline satisfies the separate obligation to disclose it in the denial notice.
For employers in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, the Fifth Circuit’s Encompass Office Solutionsdecision provides another reason to pay attention. In 2019, the court declined to disturb a ruling that contractual deadlines were unenforceable because the administrator had not disclosed them. The insurer did not appear to dispute the notice theory, which limits how broadly the decision should be read. Even with that qualification, it supports taking the same precautions.
Disability Claims Have an Added Twist
For disability claims filed after April 1, 2018, the applicable Department of Labor (DOL) regulations require an appeal-denial letter to describe the contractual lawsuit limitations period and give the actual calendar date when it expires for that claim. Simply saying “you have two years to sue” is not enough. This requirement predates Phillips, but the decision offers a useful occasion to check compliance.
Check the Letters Your Plan Sends
Plan sponsors and administrators should review their denial templates and confirm what insurers and third-party administrators actually send. The review should check that the letters:
- Disclose the contractual lawsuit deadline in both initial denials and appeal decisions, rather than relying on disclosure in the plan or SPD.
- Explain what starts the period and distinguish it from the administrative appeal deadline.
- Include the calendar expiration date in disability appeal denials.
- Explain the reasons for denial and identify the supporting plan provisions.
Consider including the calendar expiration date in final denials for other benefit claims too. DOL has signaled as much: in the preamble to its disability claims regulation, it described this kind of disclosure—the limitations period plus its calendar expiration date—as appropriate for all plan types, not just disability plans.
A short review now may help preserve a valuable defense and avoid the need to litigate the merits.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
