Curtis GARREN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit1997-06-10No. No. 96-8475

114 F.3d 186

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding that John Hancock was not the proper party defendant because Georgia-Pacific, as the designated plan administrator, controlled plan administration, and that the plaintiff's state law tortious interference claim was preempted by ERISA.

Curtis Garren appealed the dismissal of his ERISA lawsuit challenging the denial of his son's medical claims under an employee benefit plan. The district court dismissed the case on two independent grounds: John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company was not the plan administrator and therefore could not be held liable under ERISA, and Garren's state law claim for tortious interference with contract was preempted by federal ERISA law. On appeal, Garren failed to address either of these threshold issues, instead arguing the merits of his underlying claim—which the district court never reached.

The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Georgia-Pacific Corporation, not John Hancock, served as the official plan administrator with exclusive control over the plan's operation. John Hancock merely serviced the plan and exercised no discretionary authority. Additionally, the court found that Garren's state law tort claim was preempted by ERISA because the alleged misconduct involved the proper administration and interpretation of the benefit plan itself, and the claim directly connected to the refusal to pay benefits. The fact that John Hancock was not a party to the plan did not shield it from preemption, since the state law claim affected relationships between the ERISA entities.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Proper party defendant in ERISA benefit disputes
ERISA preemption of state law tort claims related to benefit denials
Whether non-administrator entities can be sued under state law for conduct affecting ERISA plan administration

Procedural posture

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his ERISA complaint alleging wrongful denial of his son's medical claims under an employee welfare benefit plan.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff, Curtis Garren, appeals the dismissal of this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, in which he alleged his employment benefit plan wrongfully denied his son’s medical claims. The district court made two decisions that led it to dismiss the complaint filed in this ease: first, the defendant John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company is not the administrator of the Plan under which plaintiff sues and therefore cannot be liable for ERISA violations; and second, ERISA precludes the state law claim for tortious interference with contract. Plaintiff has failed on appeal to address either decision of the district court, choosing instead to focus only on the merits of his claim. The district court, however, never reached the merits. Nor do we in affirming the decisions and judgment of the trial court.

The proper party defendant in an action concerning ERISA benefits is the party that controls administration of the plan. Daniel v. Eaton Corp., 839 F.2d 263, 266 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 826, 109 S.Ct. 76, 102 L.Ed.2d 52 (1988); see 29 U.S.C. § 1132(d)(1); see also Rosen v. TRW, Inc., 979 F.2d 191, 193-94 (11th Cir.1992) (a company that administers the plan can be held liable for ERISA violations). In this case, the administrator of the Georgia-Pacific Hourly Employees Welfare Benefits Trust, an ERISA plan, is plaintiffs employer, Georgia-Pacific. In fact, the benefits plan specifically states that “Georgia-Pacific Corporation is the Plan Administrator ... with exclusive responsibility and complete discretionary authority to control the operation and administration of this Plan ... and to resolve all interpretive, equitable, and other questions that shall arise in the operation of this Plan.” In addition, John Hancock, the company servicing the Plan, submitted an affidavit averring that it does not exercise any discretion, responsibility or control over the administration of the Plan. The evidence is clear that Georgia-Pacific as Plan Administrator is the proper party defendant, not John Hancock.

State laws of tortious interference with contract are preempted by ERISA when the claim involves the proper administration of a plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) (ERISA’s provisions “shall supersede any and all state laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan described in section 1003(a)----”). The term “relate to” has been interpreted broadly to preempt certain state common law causes of action brought by employees. Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 47-48, 107 S.Ct. 1549, 1552-53, 95 L.Ed.2d 39 (1987). A party’s state law claim “relates to” an ERISA benefit plan for purposes of ERISA preemption whenever the alleged conduct at issue is intertwined with the refusal to pay benefits. Farlow v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co., 874 F.2d 791 (11th Cir.1989) (plaintiffs’ state law claims preempted where claims were both contemporaneous with the insurer’s refusal to pay benefits and the alleged conduct was intertwined with the refusal to pay benefits); see also Variety Children’s Hosp. v. Century Med. Health Plan, Inc., 57 F.3d 1040, 1042 (11th Cir.1995) (where state law claims of fraud and misrepresentation are based upon failure of an ERISA plan to pay benefits, state law claims have a nexus with ERISA plan and its benefits system so that preemption applies).

Plaintiff argues that if John Hancock is neither a party to the agreement nor the plan administrator as it asserts, ERISA preemption does not apply to state claims against it. That argument is foreclosed by the decision in Morstein v. National Ins. Serv., 93 F.3d 715, 722 (11th Cir.1996) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 769, 136 L.Ed.2d 715 (1997), in which the Court held that where the state law claim brought against a non-ERISA entity affects the relationship between the ERISA entities, the state law claim is preempted. The proper focus is not on the relationship between the parties but on the relationship between the alleged conduct and the refusal to pay benefits. The allegation here that the prepayment agreement required under the Plan imposed obligations not contained in the Plan’s summary plan description involves the proper, administration of the ERISA plan.

AFFIRMED.