Sentara Health (“Sentara”) sponsored the Sentara Health 403(b) Plan (“Plan”) – a defined contribution retirement plan for its employees at its non-profit entities. Like virtually all such plans, it offered an array of investment options from which its employees can choose to invest a portion of their salary and company matching contributions. The Sentara Healthcare Fiduciary Committee (“Committee”) oversees the performance of the Plan’s investments. It does so, in part, by comparing the investments’ performance against market benchmarks and peer group investments. The Committee is assisted by an investment consulting firm, Aon Hewitt Investment Consultants (“Aon”), which recommends the benchmarks and peer groups, and provides the Committee with quarterly reports about the performance of all Plan investments. The investment at issue here is the Principal Guaranteed Interest Balance Contract (“GIBC”).
It consistently outperformed its benchmark and peer group, according to Aon’s quarterly reports. Plaintiffs alleged that they suffered losses as a result of their investment in the GIBC on the theory that the Committee breached its fiduciary duty by not monitoring the GIBC’s performance and by not replacing it with a similar investment that provided higher returns. For support, Plaintiffs proffered Matthew Eickman and Christian Toft as purported experts.
Sentara sought the exclusion of certain opinions and testimony of Eickman and Toft.
Employee Benefits Expert Witness
Matthew J. Eickman practiced employee benefits law for more than 21 years and worked with plans larger than $1 billion for more than 16 years.
From June 2012 through June 2024, he was an investment advisor representative (“IAR”) at Prime Capital Investment Advisors, LLC (“PCIA”). In his role as an IAR, he worked as a member of the investment consulting team for plans within a wide range of sizes, including those with less than $1 million in plan assets ranging up to those with several hundred million dollars in plan assets.
Investment Expert Witness
Christian David Toft has a degree in quantitative economics, and his relevant work experience includes sourcing and managing a portfolio of guaranteed investment contracts (GICs) like the GIBC on behalf of municipalities—including by participating in near-daily competitive bids for GICs—and participating in the implementation of a GIC-backed note program.
Discussion by the Court
I. Matthew Eickman
Sentara argued that Eickman’s opinions failed to raise a triable issue of fact because he is unqualified to opine on appropriate benchmarks and peer groups for investments like the GIBC.
Eickman worked as a retirement plan investment advisor at an Aon-analogous firm for 12 years—from June 2012 through June 2024—providing investment advice, IPS development and maintenance, committee governance and procedural oversight, and fiduciary training and education to defined contribution clients.
Eickman’s firm was “ultimately responsible” for coming up with benchmarks [or peer group comparisons] for clients’ investments, although the firm partnered with an outside provider “to ensure that those benchmarks were both available and capable of being applied on a consistent basis for reporting purposes.”
These experiences informed Eickman’s understanding of “industry standards for ERISA fiduciaries’ monitoring of stable value funds” and provided a sufficient basis for him to opine regarding whether the Defendants’ monitoring of the GIBC fell below the industry standard of care.
Sentara argued that Eickman’s failure to identify what a more prudent benchmark or peer group would have been means that his opinion will not assist the factfinder in evaluating the Defendants’ prudence.
Contrary to Sentara’s argument that Eickman was unable to identify an appropriate benchmark or peer group, Eickman clearly testified that the Committee should have “asked Aon to build a custom peer group that allows for comparison to other general account products that would’ve been available in the marketplace, 204 or 3(b) plan.”
Sentara also contended that the opinions expressed in Eickman’s rebuttal report are unreliable because the report “egregiously mischaracterizes” the opinions of Sentara’s rebuttal witness. The Court held that this is not an appropriate basis for a Daubert motion since the factual basis for Eickman’s opinion ultimately goes to the credibility of his testimony.
II. Christian Toft
Sentara argued that Toft is not qualified to render opinions on proper benchmarks and peer groups for measuring the performance of the GIBC because (1) Toft admits that he has no experience, knowledge, skill, education, or training in advising ERISA plan sponsors on such matters, and (2) Toft based his opinions about benchmarking on Eickman’s opinions rather than on his own analysis.
Based on the evidence before the Court, Toft has never performed work related to pension plan investments. More importantly, Toft has no knowledge or experience regarding the selection of suitable benchmarks or peer groups for a stable value fund.
Additionally, Toft lacked expertise related to the specific benchmark and peer group Sentara uses to monitor the GIBC’s performance. He admits he has no understanding of whether it is “common for stable value funds . . . to benchmark against a 90-day treasury.”
The Court decided that Toft has no relevant experience whatsoever in identifying appropriate benchmarks and peer groups. And Toft’s general familiarity with the concept of benchmarking did not render him an expert on the matter—something his “extensive experience working with GICs” did not change.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to partially exclude the testimony of Matthew Eickman and Christian Toft.
Key Takeaway
A review of Eickman’s report and the report of Sentara’s rebuttal expert indicated that the Plaintiffs have met their burden to demonstrate the reliability of Eickman’s methods by a preponderance of the evidence.
If the Defendants wish to challenge the credibility of Eickman’s assertion that prudence requires measuring performance against a custom peer group, they may do so on cross-examination.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Carter V. Sentara Healthcare Fiduciary Committee |
| Docket Number: | 2:25cv16 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Virginia Eastern |
| Order Date: | January 30, 2026 |
Leave a Reply