ERISA Settlement Enforced, Fees Awarded—Even After the Client Tried to Back Out

When life insurance proceeds are on the line, it’s tempting to rethink a settlement after feeling burned—but courts don’t cater to second thoughts. In Bennett v. The Prudential Insurance Co. of America, No. 23-11070, No. 23-11070, 2025 WL 2452378 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 26, 2025), the court made that abundantly clear.

Background: ERISA, Ex-Wife, Competing Claims

After Kennedy Bennett passed away, his $70,000 life insurance policy became the center of a tug-of-war: Kimberly Bennett (his ex-wife) versus James A. Bennett (his divorced father). The wrinkle? It was governed by ERISA.

At a court-supervised settlement conference on January 24, 2024, the parties struck a deal: 35% of the proceeds to Kimberly, 65% to James, with mutual releases of claims. Kimberly even initialed the written breakdown, and her attorney later confirmed the terms via email.

Then things went sideways.

Kimberly stalled. She refused to sign the formal settlement agreement, citing complaints—some fair (like attorney issues), some not so fair (like historical discovery matters). But none of her complaints attacked the core terms.

The Legal Issue: Is an Unsigned—but Agreed—Deal Binding?

Spoiler: Yes.

Federal courts—and the Sixth Circuit—don’t hesitate to enforce settlements that nail down all material terms, even if ink hasn’t dried. Under Michigan law, all you need is a valid offer, acceptance, and mutual assent. And regretting the deal afterward? That’s a nonstarter. Once you agree, walk-backs don’t serve equity.

What the Court Held

1. Settlement Was Enforceable

Kimberly admitted she initialed the distribution terms and didn’t claim fraud or any mutual legal mistake. Her objections didn’t challenge the substance of the deal—just side issues. So the court found the agreement binding. No take-backs are allowed.

2. Attorney’s Fees under ERISA (§ 1132(g)(1))

The Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Clinic stepped in to help James after Kimberly refused to conclude the case. The clinic asked for fees. Applying the Sixth Circuit’s five-factor test, the court found Kimberly’s refusal was unreasonable and deterred settlement finality. Plus, she could pay. The result? The clinic was awarded $5,684.00 in fees.

3. Former Counsel’s Lien (Quantum Meruit)

Kimberly’s former lawyer, Rabih Hamawi, had withdrawn from the case—but still sought compensation under a contingency agreement. Michigan law allows that under “quantum meruit.” The court adjusted the amount, pushing back on the original $10,800 ask, citing case simplicity and fairness. The award: $6,124.39 in fees and $2,686.16 in costs, totaling $8,810.55.

Final Pay-Out: Who Got What

• $5,684 to the Pro Se Clinic (attorney fees)
• $8,810.55 to Law Office of Rabih Hamawi (fees + costs)
• $10,005.45 net to Kimberly Bennett
• $45,500 to James Bennett

The court also ordered Kimberly to execute the settlement documents and directed the parties to file a stipulated dismissal within 30 days.

Why This Case Matters

• Settlement agreements can bite—hard. Once material terms are clear, they’re enforceable, signs or scribbles be darned.
• Refusing to follow through? Expect fees. The court didn’t hesitate to sanction Kimberly via fee-shifting.
• Lawyers aren’t helpless just because they withdraw—they’re still owed fair compensation under quantum meruit.