Case Explained: MARK L. JUSTMAN v. ACCENTURE LLP; PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Filed: 2026-06-17 Docket: 2:24-cv-04107) The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s orders denying Mark Justman leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, denying his motion for reconsideration, and dismissing his ERISA claims against Accenture LLP with prejudice. The court held that Justman failed to state a plausible claim for wrongful denial of benefits under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) because Accenture was not the proper defendant; under applicable precedent, a proper defendant in such a claim must be the entity controlling benefit determinations or obligated to pay, which in this case was Prudential Insurance Company of America, not Accenture. The court further ruled that Justman’s claims regarding the failure to furnish Summary Plan Descriptions (SPDs) failed because he did not plead facts establishing that the statutory deadlines for providing the 2020 or 2021 SPDs had passed prior to his wife’s death, nor did he allege sufficient elements for a breach of fiduciary duty claim under ERISA § 404, specifically failing to demonstrate materiality or detrimental reliance on the alleged lack of disclosure. Consequently, further amendment would be futile, and the dismissal with prejudice was proper. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.