Bruce Kienle v. Hunter Engineering ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 98-4118
    ___________
    Bruce Kienle,                       *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellant,       * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                           * Eastern District of Missouri.
    *
    Hunter Engineering Company and      *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Profit Sharing Plan and Trust,      *
    *
    Defendants - Appellees,      *
    ___________
    Submitted: May 13, 1999
    Filed: August 11, 1999
    ___________
    Before LOKEN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    In July 1988, Bruce Kienle, a resident of New York, entered into a written sales
    representative agreement with Hunter Engineering Company reciting that he “shall not
    be considered or deemed in any way to be an employee of the Company.” Kienle
    served as a sales representative until October 1992, earning compensation that Hunter
    Engineering reported on IRS Form 1099 rather than the Form W2 used for reporting
    employee wages. In September 1997, Kienle filed this action in the Southern District
    of Illinois, alleging that Hunter Engineering had violated ERISA by denying him
    benefits from its Profit Sharing Plan and Trust. The case was transferred to the Eastern
    District of Missouri, where Hunter Engineering has its principal place of business. The
    district court1 dismissed Kienle’s ERISA claims as time-barred. The court concluded
    that the breach of fiduciary duty claim is barred by ERISA’s own three-year statute of
    limitations, 29 U.S.C. § 1113, and the wrongful denial of benefits claim is barred by
    New York’s six-year statute of limitations, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213 (McKinney), made
    applicable to this case by Missouri’s borrowing statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.190.
    Kienle appeals, arguing that his claim for wrongful denial of benefits did not
    accrue until September 1997, or alternatively that a new claim for benefits accrued each
    year. After careful review of the record, we conclude that Kienle’s claims are time-
    barred for the reasons stated in the district court’s Memorandum and Order dated
    November 3, 1998. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    1
    The HONORABLE STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, United States District Judge
    for the Eastern District of Missouri.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 98-4118

Filed Date: 8/11/1999

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/13/2015