Providers often believe that being helpful will protect them if something goes wrong. It feels intuitive: strong relationships, responsive service, and goodwill should count for something.
In ERISA litigation, they usually don’t.
Courts don’t evaluate intent, tone, or effort. They evaluate actions, authority, and outcomes. A provider can be attentive, kind, and well-liked—and still end up in trouble if their conduct crossed a fiduciary or operational line.
What matters is not whether you tried to help, but whether you exercised discretion, gave advice, or assumed responsibility. A friendly phone call doesn’t outweigh a poorly documented decision. Years of good service don’t erase a single compliance failure.
This disconnect surprises many providers. They remember the late nights, the extra help, and the problem-solving. Plaintiffs’ lawyers remember emails, processes, and missed safeguards.
The lesson isn’t to stop providing good service. It’s to stop assuming good service is a defense. Documentation, role clarity, and process discipline matter more than goodwill when things turn adversarial.
Providers who understand this early don’t become cynical—they become careful. They serve clients well while protecting themselves through clear communication and written records.
Good service builds relationships. Good documentation survives litigation.
