How to use this library
Each case brief follows a consistent structure: full citation, parties and procedural posture, the operative facts as the court found them, the issue framed by the court, the holding, the court's reasoning in plain English, and a closing section on what the decision means for plan trustees making bond decisions today.
The briefs are written for research and educational purposes. They are not legal advice and should not be relied on as a substitute for counsel familiar with your specific facts. ERISA fidelity bond questions interact with state insurance law, federal civil procedure, and the specific bond form in force at the time of loss — and small differences in those facts can produce materially different outcomes.
If you are evaluating a potential bond claim, a coverage denial, or a question about your bond's response to a specific loss pattern, contact us at (800) 373-2804 or Underwriting@SuretyOne.com — we work with counsel routinely.
The cases
Recurring patterns
Read across all six briefs, several patterns emerge in how federal courts approach ERISA bond coverage questions:
The "handling" inquiry is functional, not titular
Courts repeatedly look at what a person actually did with plan funds, not what their title was. A person who held no formal trustee role but moved plan funds between accounts in the ordinary course of duties has been treated as a "handler" subject to the bond. A person who held a trustee title but never touched plan funds has been treated as outside the bond's coverage.
Notice is the most common failure mode
More bond coverage denials trace back to notice timing than to substantive coverage disputes. Courts construe "as soon as practicable" language strictly when the delay caused prejudice to the surety; less strictly when the delay was reasonable in context. Trustees should treat the discovery date as the trigger for an immediate notice obligation.
Courts distinguish bond claims from fiduciary breach claims
The bond covers fraud and dishonesty. Fiduciary liability covers breach of duty. Several decisions have clarified that the surety owes nothing on a fiduciary breach claim that did not involve dishonest acts, and conversely that the fiduciary policy may not respond to a claim that should have been a bond claim. The distinction matters for both coverage and litigation strategy.
Plan-asset characterization is fact-specific
Whether a particular fund movement involved "plan assets" turns on facts about segregation, holding accounts, and the moment of trust attachment. The cases produce general principles but no bright-line rule, which is why the calculator we publish includes only the formula, not asset characterization.