Case Explained: RICHARD D. KELLY v. ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES, LLC; DEFERRED PROFIT-SHARING PLAN FOR SALARIED EMPLOYEES; FIDELITY WORKPLACE SERVICES, LLC

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-10 The fourth-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment regarding Richard Kelly’s claims for denial of ERISA benefits and breach of fiduciary duty, but reversed and remanded the ruling on his claim for statutory penalties regarding document disclosure. Regarding the denial of benefits claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), the court applied the abuse of discretion standard because the plan granted the administrator discretionary authority. The court held that Altria did not abuse its discretion in denying Kelly’s claim, as the decision was supported by substantial evidence and resulted from a deliberate, principled reasoning process consistent with the *Booth* factors. The record showed that Fidelity completed the liquidation and distribution within the timeframes communicated to Kelly, and any conflicting statements regarding timing were outweighed by subsequent accurate estimates provided by other representatives. Regarding the breach of fiduciary duty claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), the court affirmed that Fidelity was not a functional fiduciary because it performed only ministerial recordkeeping and administrative functions rather than exercising discretionary authority over plan management or assets. Furthermore, even if Fidelity were deemed a fiduciary, the court found no breach of duty because its representations regarding transaction timelines were accurate and within the stated estimates, and it provided no investment advice or guarantees. Regarding the claim for penalties under 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4) for failing to provide an Administrative Services Agreement (ASA), the court reversed the district court’s conclusion that the ASA was not a document “under which the plan is established or operated.” Applying statutory text and ordinary public meaning at the time of ERISA’s enactment, the court determined that because the ASA directed Fidelity to perform ministerial duties essential to the plan’s operation—such as answering participant inquiries and managing transactions—it qualified as a document under which the plan operated. Consequently, Kelly was entitled to receive the document. The practical consequence is that the district court’s judgment is affirmed in all respects except for the denial of penalties on the document disclosure claim. The case is remanded to the district court to evaluate in the first instance whether statutory penalties are appropriate for Altria’s failure to provide the ASA upon Kelly’s request. The court also affirmed the award of attorney’s fees to the defendants. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.