By: dmc-admin//July 23, 2001//
“The district court ruled that Platinum was estopped from denying Bock the full severance benefits, defined as including commissions. The court reasoned that Freedman’s assurances that ‘everything is included … you’re covered’ induced Bock to sign the agreement. However, Platinum correctly points out that ERISA estoppel claims require a plaintiff to show (1) a knowing misrepresentation; (2) made in writing; (3) with reasonable reliance on that misrepresentation … (4) to [the plaintiff’s] detriment.’ Coker v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 165 F.3d 579, 585 (7th Cir. 1999). We need not consider all Platinum’s objections to the district court’s conclusion because one will suffice: Bock does not prevail on an estoppel theory because there was no showing of detrimental reliance. That element of the estoppel claim requires a showing of economic harm. … Bock argues that his continuing in Platinum’s employ when put at risk of termination by a threatened takeover is sufficient detrimental reliance. However, there has been no showing, for example, that Bock refused alternative employment on account of his belief in a generous severance provision. If Bock has additional evidence to proffer on this point or a related one on remand, the district court in its discretion may receive additional relevant evidence.”
Vacated and remanded.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Conley, J., Cudahy, J.