In ERISA action by plaintiffs-welfare plans alleging that defendants-employers owed contributions to said plans based on language contained in four collective bargaining agreements, Dist. Ct. did not err in determining that defendants owed $1.8 million, after finding that: (1) collective bargaining agreements called for payments based on every hour defendants were paid, as opposed to every hour employees worked; and (2) auditor hired by plaintiffs was not required to offset any overpayments made by defendants when calculating underpayments. Auditor was not required to calculate said offsets since burden of proof regarding existence of overpayments was on defendants. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could properly find that report of defendants’ auditor, who only found $1.2 million in underpayments, was unreliable, where: (1) said report was generated by “in-house” auditor who lacked relevant experience; and (2) said report was based on unexplained assumptions.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
ERISA