Ninth Circuit Affirms Slayer Convicted of Murdering ERISA Plan Participant Is Not Entitled to His Benefits

In Munger v. Cloud, No. 23-3107, 2026 WL 1734889 (9th Cir. June 16, 2026), an unpublished memorandum disposition, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment holding that Defendant, who was convicted of the second-degree murder of the decedent, is not entitled to the decedent’s benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). The decedent participated in several ERISA-governed plans administered by Intel Corporation, including the Intel Retirement Contribution Plan, the Intel 401(k) Savings Plan, the Intel Minimum Pension Plan, the Intel Retiree Medical Plan, and the Sheltered Employee Retirement Medical Account. Plaintiff, the representative of the decedent’s estate, sought and obtained summary judgment in the District of Oregon before District Judge Marco A. Hernandez that Defendant could not recover the decedent’s ERISA benefits because she is his slayer. Defendant appealed.

Reviewing the grant of summary judgment de novo, the Ninth Circuit declined to resolve whether Oregon or California law applied, or whether either state’s slayer statute is preempted by ERISA, because no triable factual dispute existed that Defendant is the decedent’s slayer. The court explained that under both California and Oregon law a person’s killer is not entitled to benefit from the decedent’s pension, and a final judgment of conviction for a felonious and intentional killing conclusively establishes that an individual is a slayer. Defendant had exhausted her appeals, and her conviction for the second-degree murder of the decedent became final when judgment issued on December 18, 2025. The court further held that even if the state slayer statutes were preempted, federal common law refuses to allow a person to benefit financially from a murder she committed, citing Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v. Armstrong, 117 U.S. 591 (1886). Defendant’s criminal conviction therefore conclusively established that she is not entitled to the decedent’s ERISA benefits under federal law.

The court also held the district court did not err in estopping Defendant from relitigating whether she murdered the decedent. Applying the preclusion law of Oregon, where the criminal judgment issued, the court found all issue preclusion criteria met because Defendant was convicted of an intentional murder, a serious offense, and her guilt was established in a proceeding where she had a full and fair opportunity to litigate. The court declined to reach Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff violated her Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights because that issue was neither pleaded nor adjudicated below. Finally, the court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s request to appoint counsel, as she failed to show exceptional circumstances, or in denying her leave to amend to assert a counterclaim based on a rescinded state settlement agreement, which the court found futile and unduly delayed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.