A group of retirees claimed for almost eight years that MetLife had been computing their pension benefits using actuarial tables that belonged in a time capsule. These tables were created in a period when disko was still popular and life expectancy was very different from what it is today. That protracted conflict ended last June. A $23 million settlement reached by MetLife put an end to a case that had gone through every stage of the federal court system before finally coming to a trial.
In December 2018, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the name McAlister et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. et al. Fundamentally, the case brought up a question that may sound almost technical but has practical ramifications for those who worked for decades in anticipation of a specific retirement income: were retirees truly getting what they were due?
The plaintiffs declined. Retirees claimed the benefit amount was being subtly undervalued when they selected a joint and survivor annuity, which continues payments to a surviving spouse after the retiree passes away. All annuity options must be “actuarially equivalent,” or have the same total value, in accordance with ERISA, the federal law that governs retirement plans. By using mortality tables from the 1970s and 1980s to do the math, MetLife was accused in the complaint of failing to meet that standard. Once you see it, the issue is easy to comprehend: those earlier tables predicted that people would pass away earlier than they do now. The monthly check decreases if you use out-of-date life expectancy data.
To be honest, it’s still a little astounding that calculations impacting billions of plan assets and thousands of retirees could depend on something so fundamental remaining unquestioned for so long. As of 2024, the MetLife Retirement Plan had over 13,200 members and assets of over $7.9 billion. That’s a big business with narrow profit margins. Critics claim that the plan should have updated these calculations decades ago, but they were methodical and intentional.
The case overcame a motion to dismiss, passed class certification, underwent an unsuccessful mediation attempt, and was set for trial before Judge Dale E. Ho in February 2026. The parties then came to an agreement in principle the day before testimony was scheduled to start. It’s difficult to determine whether that timing represents a sincere change of heart or a calculated assessment of the litigation odds. MetLife refrained from making a public statement regarding the settlement.
This case is worth keeping an eye on because of how it fits into a larger legal pattern. This was not a singular charge. Pensions & Investments reported that MetLife was the most recent of several major plan sponsors to resolve ERISA claims related to mortality table assumptions. If the trial had gone forward, it would have been the first of its kind in this wave of litigation and could serve as a gage for how judges might have decided the underlying math. In some ways, that question remains unanswered because it was settled the nite before the opening arguments.
Participants who started receiving or became eligible to receive benefits on or after January 1, 2013, and who accrued benefits under various plan formulas, such as the MetLife Traditional Formula, the GenAmerica Corporation Performance Plan, and the New England Life Insurance Company formula, are covered by the settlement class. Judge Ho will hold a formal fairness hearing on November 12, 2026. Deadlines for class members who want to object start in late October.
Cases like this one seem to seldom receive the public attention they merit. By its very nature, pension math is dry. Actuarial table mechanics don’t lend themselves to simple headlines. Beneath the legalese, however, is a simple story: individuals selected benefit options they thought were comparable, and for years, they allegedly received less than they should have. That gap won’t be completely closed by a $23 million settlement. However, it might at least let the more than 13,000 participants know that someone was paying attention.
