Eleventh Circuit Drops Its ERISA Exhaustion Requirement for Fiduciary Breach Claims: What Plan Sponsors Need to Know about Bolton v. Inland Fresh Seafood Corp. of Am., Inc.
Employers that sponsor benefit plans in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama just lost a procedural defense that had long been unique to the region. On October 13, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, unanimously dropped its longstanding practice of requiring plan participants to exhaust their plan's administrative remedies before filing fiduciary breach claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).[1] As a result of this ruling, workers in the circuit will now have an easier time suing over their employee benefit plans.
What the Court Decided
Until now, the Eleventh Circuit was an outlier: it required participants to follow the plan’s claims procedures before bringing a fiduciary breach lawsuit. Writing for the en banc court, Judge Adalberto Jordan called that practice “an atextual product of judicial creation based solely on policy reasons.” He also noted that seven other federal appeals courts have rejected the requirement.
The court’s reasoning rests on the statute's text. ERISA itself does not require exhaustion for fiduciary breach claims, and the court concluded that judges should not add a requirement Congress did not write. The decision brings the Eleventh Circuit in line with most other circuits on this issue.
Why It Matters for Employers
For years, the exhaustion requirement gave plan sponsors and fiduciaries in the Eleventh Circuit an early and often effective way to get fiduciary breach suits dismissed. That defense is now gone. In practical terms, plan sponsors should expect:
- Faster access to court. Participants can now bring fiduciary breach claims directly, without first going through the plan's internal review process.
- More litigation exposure. With one fewer procedural hurdle, the circuit may see more fiduciary breach lawsuits, such as those challenging investment lineups, fees, and plan administration.
- Less forum advantage. The Eleventh Circuit no longer offers plan defendants a procedural rule that other circuits do not.
The decision addresses fiduciary breach claims. Plan sponsors should not assume it changes how courts treat exhaustion for claims for benefits under a plan's terms. Counsel should review the full opinion to confirm how far the holding reaches.
Recommended Next Steps
In light of this ruling, plan sponsors and fiduciaries with participants in the Eleventh Circuit should consider the following steps:
- Review fiduciary processes now. Because early dismissal is less likely, the strength of your fiduciary process will matter more. Document committee meetings, investment reviews, fee benchmarking, and service provider monitoring.
- Reassess litigation strategy. Defense plans for pending and future claims that counted on an exhaustion defense should be reevaluated.
- Check fiduciary liability coverage. Confirm that your fiduciary liability insurance limits and retentions still fit your risk profile.
- Update claims procedures and plan documents. Internal procedures still matter for benefit claims, so make sure plan language and summary plan descriptions remain clear and compliant.
How FRB Can Help
Falcon Rappaport & Berkman's Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation team advises employers, plan sponsors, and fiduciaries on ERISA compliance, fiduciary governance, and litigation risk. If you have questions about how this decision affects your plans, please contact a member of our team.
[1] Bolton v. Inland Fresh Seafood Corp. of Am., Inc., 11th Cir., No. 24-10084, en banc 10/13/26.
DISCLAIMER: This summary is not legal advice and does not create any attorney-client relationship. This summary does not provide a definitive legal opinion for any factual situation. Before the firm can provide legal advice or opinion to any person or entity, the specific facts at issue must be reviewed by the firm. Before an attorney-client relationship is formed, the firm must have a signed engagement letter with a client setting forth the Firm’s scope and terms of representation. The information contained herein is based upon the law at the time of publication.