on notice of the change in Defendant’s dividend policy. Defendant claims once Plaintiff had “information sufficient to alert a reasonable person to the possibility of wrongdoing,” it had a “duty to inquire into the matter with due diligence.” Med. Mut. of Ohio v. K. Amalia Enters. Inc., 548 F.3d 383, 391 (6th Cir.2008). At an absolute minimum, upon receipt of the Dividend Letter, Plaintiff should have asked what Defendant meant by the “class of business to which this contract belongs.” Plaintiff argues in the alternative that every year that Defendant exercises its discretion as a fiduciary to apply an incorrect dividend policy, it commits a new, distinct breach of its ERISA obligations. See Bona v. Barasch, No. 01 Civ. 2289(MBM), 2003 WL 1395932, *16-19 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2003) (<HOLDING>); Buccino v. Cont’l Assurance Co., 578 F.Supp.
holding that retirement benefits are accrued benefits under erisa holding that erisa preempts an article 1802 emotional distress claim that relates to an erisa plan holding that because an erisa plan is not a participant beneficiary or fiduciary subject matter jurisdiction did not exist under  502e of erisa over a suit brought by such a plan holding that an erisa violation accrued each time faulty investment contracts were renewed because erisa fiduciaries had a continuing duty to review plan investments holding that erisa does not preempt the plaintiffs claim that the erisa plan administrator is liable for medical malpractice where the plaintiff premised the claim solely on state law and did not invoke the erisa plan