A recent decision by a federal court in Nevada deals with the question of ERISA pre-emption of state law claims against benefit plan service providers such as actuaries.   In Parsons v. Bd. of Trs. of the Nev. Resort Ass'n - I.A.T.S.E. Local 702 Retirement Plan (D. Nev., 2013) , the court dismissed a state law negligence claim brought by a plan participant against the defendant who provided administrative services to the plan on ERISA pre-emption grounds:

"any state-law cause of action that duplicates, supplements, or supplants the ERISA civil enforcement remedy conflicts with the clear congressional intent to make the ERISA remedy exclusive and is therefore pre-empted." Id.
Meaning, ERISA's preemptive provisions "defeat state-law causes of action on the merits."

Since ERISA does not provide for a cause of action by plan participants against non-fiduciary service providers, the pre-emption of state law claims means that participants have a very limited ability to directly sue plan actuaries for mistakes. 

The court in Parsons acknowledged an earlier decision by the Ninth Circuit in Paulsen v. CNF Inc., 559 F.3d 1061  (9th Cir.2009) where the Court of Appeals allowed a participant claim against an actuarial firm in a situation where the participants were intended third party beneficiaries of the the firm's contract with the Plan.   In Parsons, however, the court dismissed the negligence claim against the service provider because there was no provision making participants beneficiaries, and the negligence claim had direct bearing on relations regulated by ERISA.

Therefore it is important that actuaries who are providing services to an employee benefit plan include a provision in their contract explicitly stating that the only client is the plan and there are no intended third party beneficiaries of the actuaries' services.   In this way, the ERISA pre-emption of negligence claims brought by participants can be preserved.

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.