With emphasis on developments in the Fourth Circuit, this Article first describes the pursuit's origination in plan language and ERISA's statutory provisions; it then explores ERISA preemption and cases in which injured participants invoke state statutory and common law to contradict plan terms. A review of the attorney's role follows, including an inquiry into issues concerning attorney fees. With consideration of policies behind ERISA, the Article concludes that adherence to well-drafted plan terms legitimizes the parties' bargain, avoids development of disparate federal common law, and facilitates the allocation of proceeds.
John R. Cella Jr., The Pursuit of Proceeds by Plans, Participants and Plaintiffs' Lawyers: Dissonant Solutions to an Alliterative Problem, 22 Campbell L. Rev. 317 (2000).