Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:02-CV-2278-L (BH).
December 23, 2004
Pretrial Management
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the District Court's Standing Order of Reference, filed April 8, 2004, this case was referred to this Court for pretrial management, including the determination of non-dispositive motions and findings of fact and recommendation to the District Court on dispositive motions. Before the Court is Hartford Life Accident Insurance Company's Motion and Brief in Support of Partial Motion to Dismiss and Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint ("Def. Mot."), filed November 15, 2002. Based on the filings and the applicable law, the Court recommends that Hartford's motion for partial dismissal be GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Muriel Matney ("Matney") brings this action against Defendant Hartford Life Insurance Company ("Hartford"), which issued a group disability policy ("Plan") to her former employer, Mary Kay, Cosmetics, Inc. (Compl. at ¶ 5.) Matney received long-term disability ("LTD") benefits under the Plan from 1991 to 2000, when her benefits were terminated.Matney filed the instant civil action on October 18, 2002, alleging state law claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) and the Insurance Code. She also sought a declaratory judgment that ERISA did not apply to her claim under the policy. In the alternative, she alleged claims pursuant to ERISA. On November 15, 2002, Hartford filed its answer and a motion for partial dismissal of Matney's state law claims. The parties filed a Joint Status Report on December 20, 2002, in which Matney stated that she would not oppose the partial motion to dismiss with respect to the non-ERISA claims. Subsequently, on January 30, 2003, the parties filed a joint motion for remand to the claims administrator to supplement the administrative record. The parties moved jointly on September 15, 2003 to reopen the case. On April 8, 2004, this case was referred to the undersigned for pretrial management. The unopposed motion to dismiss is now before the Court and is ripe for determination.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Failure to State a Claim
Hartford moves to dismiss Matney's non-ERISA claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. "[T]he motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted." Lewis v. City of DeSoto, Texas, 2003 WL 292169, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2003) (quoting Kaiser Aluminum Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1050 (5th Cir. 1982)). "[D]ismissal of a claim on the basis of barebones pleadings is a `precarious disposition with a high mortality rate.'" Id. (quoting Barber v. Motor Vessel "Blue Cat", 372 F.2d 626, 627 (5th Cir. 1967)). "The [district] court may dismiss a claim when it is clear that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Id. (quoting Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Co., 313 F.3d 305, 312 (5th Cir. 2002) (Rule 12(c) decision)). "In analyzing the complaint, [the court] will accept all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Id. "The issue is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether he is entitled to offer evidence to support his claim." Id. "Thus the court should not dismiss the claim unless the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts or any possible theory that he could prove consistent with the allegations in the complaint." Id.
In this case, Matney appears to have conceded that she would not be entitled to relief on her non-ERISA state claims. In an abundance of caution, the Court briefly addresses each claim.
B. ERISA Preemption
Hartford contends that Matney's non-ERISA claims are preempted by ERISA. (Def. Mot. at 2.) Matney brought suit to recover long-term disability benefits pursuant to a group policy issued by her employer, Mary Kay Cosmetics, Inc. (Compl. at § 5.) ERISA defines an employee benefit plan as "any plan, fund or program which is . . . established or maintained by an employer . . . to the extent such plan, fund or program was established or maintained for the purpose of providing for its participants . . . (A) benefits in the event of . . . disability . . ." 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1). Because Matney received LTD benefits pursuant to a policy maintained by her employer, that policy qualifies as an ERISA plan.
A suit to recover benefits from an ERISA plan comes within the scope of ERISA's express preemption provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1144, which declares that ERISA `supersede[s] any and all state laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan . . .'" Ramirez v. Inter-Continental Hotels, 890 F.2d. 760, 762-763 (5th Cir. 1989) (citing and quoting Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724 (1985)). "`A law "relates to" an employee benefit plan, in the normal sense of the phrase, if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan.'" Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McLendon, 498 U.S. 133 (1990) (quoting Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96-97 (1983))
1. Breach of Contract
Hartford contends that Matney's breach of contract claim is preempted by ERISA and should be dismissed. (Def. Mot. at 1-2.) The Fifth Circuit has held that common law contract claims relating to an employee benefit plan are preempted by ERISA. Hogan v. Kraft Foods, 969 F.2d 142, 144 (5th Cir. 1992) (citing Hermann Hospital v. MEBA Medical and Benefits Plan, 845 F.2d 1286 (5th Cir. 1988)). Accordingly, Hartford's motion to dismiss should be granted, and Matney's breach of contract claim should be dismissed.
2. Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Hartford also alleges that Matney's claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing should be dismissed as preempted by ERISA. (Def. Mot. at 3.) The Fifth Circuit has held that claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing are preempted by ERISA when based on a claim related to a refusal to pay benefits under an employee benefit plan. Hogan, 969 F.2d at 144 (citing Hermann Hospital, 845 F.2d 1286). Accordingly, Matney's breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing claim should be dismissed.
3. Violations of Texas Insurance Code
Hartford asserts that Matney's claims based on provisions of the Texas Insurance Code. are preempted by ERISA. (Def. Mot. at 3.) The Fifth Circuit has held that "ERISA preempts state statutes that provide a private right of action for the improper handling of insurance claims." Ramirez, 890 F.2d at 764. Accordingly, Matney's Texas Insurance Code claims should be dismissed. See, e.g., Hogan, 969 F.2d 142 (finding that ERISA preempts Art. 21.21 of the Texas Insurance Code).
4. Violations of the DTPA
Hartford contends that Matney's Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA") claims are preempted by ERISA. (Def. Mot. at 3.) ERISA preempts DTPA claims brought pursuant to ERISA-related disputes. Hogan, 969 F.2d at 144 (citing Boren v. N.L. Industries, Inc., 889 F.2d 1463 (5th Cir. 1989)). Accordingly, Matney's DTPA claims should be dismissed.
5. Declaratory Judgment
Hartford asserts that a suit brought pursuant to an employee welfare benefit plan must be brought pursuant to ERISA's civil enforcement provision, and that the Court should dismiss Matney's claim for declaratory judgment that ERISA is inapplicable to her claims under the LTD policy. (Def. Mot. at 2.) As the Court previously noted, Matney does not oppose the motion to dismiss. Furthermore, on June 25, 2004, Matney filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) of ERISA. She therefore appears to have conceded that ERISA applies to her claims under Hartford's LTD policy. Accordingly, Matney's declaratory judgment claim should also be dismissed.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons herein stated, Hartford's motion to dismiss should be granted, and Matney's non-ERISA claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Her non-ERISA claims are properly dismissed with prejudice. Ramirez, 890 F.2d at 764 (dismissal of state law claims preempted by ERISA operates as a decision on the merits, and such claims should be dismissed with prejudice).Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Hartford Life Accident Insurance Company's Motion and Brief in Support of Partial Motion to Dismiss and Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint be GRANTED.