A partner in the firm’s Chicago office, Pete Pederson practices in the areas of ERISA litigation, business litigation, and class action defense. Mr. Pederson has defended insurers, employers, and plan fiduciaries in dozens of actions filed by plaintiffs seeking benefits, equitable relief, and other remedies under the ERISA statute. In addition, he has represented businesses and insurers in disputes involving claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, bad faith, fraud, and other torts. He also has represented small business owners in the negotiation of, and disputes arising from, partnership and shareholder agreements. Finally, Mr. Pederson has experience with defending corporations in class actions under a number of statutes, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and state consumer fraud statutes.

Mr. Pederson has briefed and argued appeals in the United States Courts of Appeals for the First and Seventh Circuits. He has litigated cases through judgment before United States district courts in the First, Seventh, Eighth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits. In 2011, Mr. Pederson was admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court in connection with an amicus brief he prepared on behalf of an industry association. The ERISA matters that Mr. Pederson has handled include the following:

• Stock-drop class action. Participants in a pension plan established by a waste management company filed a class action alleging that company executives breached their fiduciary duties by imprudently investing plan assets in company stock. The court granted summary judgment to the client, the former CFO, holding that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
• Action challenging termination of disability benefits based on limitation for mental illness. A participant in a long-term disability plan established by a credit union sued the plan’s insurer, the client, alleging that its termination of her benefits violated ERISA and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the insurer. In addition to drafting the motion for summary judgment, Mr. Pederson drafted the appellee’s brief and argued the appeal before a panel made up of then Chief Circuit Judge Michael Boudin, Circuit Judge Jeffrey Howard, and retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter.
• Claim for breach of fiduciary duty based on third party administrator’s failure to disclose internal benefit guidelines. A participant in a health insurance plan governed by ERISA alleged that the plan’s third-party claim administrator, the client, denied her claim for speech-therapy services based on internal benefit guidelines that the administrator initially refused to disclose. The district court dismissed all the claims asserted against the administrator under Rule 12(b)(6). The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Mr. Pederson wrote the briefs in the district court and co-wrote the appellee’s brief.
• Bench trial in action challenging plan insurer’s termination of disability benefits. A participant in a long-term disability plan sued the plan’s insurer, the client, alleging it improperly terminated her disability benefits and violated ERISA’s mandate to conduct a full and fair review of her claim. Following a bench trial that Mr. Pederson second-chaired, the chief judge of the Northern District of Illinois entered judgment in favor of the insurer.
• Action challenging denial of accidental-death benefits based on felony exclusion. The widow of a participant in a life insurance plan submitted a claim to the plan’s insurer, the client, after her husband died in an automobile crash that occurred while his blood-alcohol content was three times higher than the legal limit. The district court and the Seventh Circuit held that the client correctly denied the claim based on a policy exclusion for loss resulting from the participant’s commission of a felony.
• Action challenging termination of disability benefits. A participant in a long-term disability plan sued the plan’s insurer, the client, after it terminated her disability benefits. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the client. Mr. Pederson wrote the motion for summary judgment in the district court and co-wrote the brief on appeal. The opinion is widely cited for two holdings: (1) that plan participants generally are not entitled to discovery beyond the administrative record in cases subject to deferential review; and (2) that the employer expressly granted the insurer discretionary authority over benefits decisions through three separate plan documents, none of which granted such authority to the insurer by name.

The business disputes that Mr. Pederson has handled include the following:

• Action for rescission of group insurance policies covering members of union. A union trust fund sued an insurer and its indirect parent, the clients, for a refund of premiums that the trust fund paid to the insurer for group policies that provided union members with life insurance and accidental death and dismemberment insurance. The district court dismissed the parent corporation for lack of personal jurisdiction, and then entered summary judgment for the insurer on both the trust fund’s claims and the insurer’s counterclaim to recover unpaid premiums. The Seventh Circuit affirmed on all counts. Mr. Pederson wrote the briefs on appeal and in the district court.
• Action for breach of contract and violation of state consumer-protection law arising from prepaid services card. The plaintiff paid a merchant $150,000 for a prepaid services card that could be used to purchase chartered flights brokered by the merchant. Instead of remitting the money to the card issuer (the client), the merchant kept the funds and became insolvent when the financial markets crashed in 2008. The plaintiff sued the card issuer and its affiliate, contending they were liable for the merchant’s default. The district court entered summary judgment for the card issuer and its affiliate based on the motion Mr. Pederson prepared.
• Action to enforce buy-sell agreement between shareholders of privately held corporation. The client, who held one third of the company’s stock, sued the other two shareholders to compel them to purchase his shares under the buy-sell agreement. The Circuit Court of Cook County entered partial summary judgment in favor of the client, holding that the agreement required the defendants to purchase his stock. Afterwards the client obtained a favorable cash settlement.

The class actions that Mr. Pederson has defended include the following:

• Action for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). Mr. Pederson won summary judgment and defeated class certification in an action alleging that a debt collector, the client, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) by using automated dialing equipment to call the plaintiff’s cell phone.
• Action for violations of the TCPA and Fair Credit Reporting Act. Mr. Pederson won a motion for summary judgment in a putative class action alleging that DirecTV and its vendor (the client) violated the TCPA by using automated dialing equipment to make a fraud notification call to the plaintiff’s cell phone.
• Action alleging that notice of administrative wage garnishment violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment, holding that a debt collector’s garnishment notice accurately summarized the Department of Education regulations that authorize administrative wage garnishment to collect defaulted student loans. Mr. Pederson wrote the motion for summary judgment and co-wrote the brief on appeal.
• Action for violations of the FDCPA. Mr. Pederson won a motion for summary judgment in a class action alleging that the client, a debt collector, violated the Fair Debt act by sending a debtor a collection letter that failed to state the amount of the debt. In addition to drafting the motion for summary judgment, Mr. Pederson wrote the appellate brief and argued the appeal before the Seventh Circuit.

After graduating cum laude from the University of Illinois with a B.A. in economics, Mr. Pederson earned his J.D., cum laude, at Boston University School of Law. He later obtained an LL.M. in tax, with an emphasis on employee benefits regulation, at the University of Washington. Mr. Pederson joined Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP as an associate in August 1999. Mr. Pederson’s publications include:

• “U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Whether There Is Federal Question Jurisdiction Over Private TCPA Actions,” MAPbulletin, November 2011.
• “Does Great-West v. Knudson Extend the Seventh Amendment Right to a Jury Trial to Claims for Benefits Under ERISA?” DRI ERISA Report, Winter 2011.
• “Recent Trends in Claims Against Self-Insured Health Plan Administrators,” co-author of presentation given at 30th Annual SIAA National Educational Conference & Expo, October 2010.
• “Regulatory Developments under the Community Reinvestment Act,” Annual Review of Banking Law (1998).

Mr. Pederson contributes annually to the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and WFMT, Chicago’s classical music station. Pete enjoys skiing and hiking in the western United States, and running and cycling on the streets of Chicago. He is an avid reader of 19th- and 20th-century literature and philosophy.