Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-6571.
March 19, 2004
MEMORANDUM
Robert McCaughey ("Plaintiff") has filed a three (3) count Complaint against UnumProvident Corporation ("Defendant"), alleging Breach of Contract, Breach of Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and Bad Faith. Presently before this Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss UnumProvident Corporation as a Named Defendant and Counts II-III of Plaintiff's Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons which follow, the defendant's Motion to Dismiss UnumProvident Corporation as a Named Defendant is granted. As a result, plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed as it pertains to UnumProvident Corporation, an improper party to this litigation, but the Court will grant plaintiff leave to file a motion to amend pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to name the correct defendant.
I. Legal Standard
When deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court may look only to the facts alleged in the complaint and its attachments. Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien Frankel, 20 F.3d 1251, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). The court must accept as true all well pleaded allegations in the complaint and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Angelastro v. Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc., 764 F.2d 939, 944 (3d Cir. 1985). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion will be granted only when it is certain that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved by the plaintiff. Ransom v. Marrazzo, 848 F.2d 398, 401 (3d Cir. 1988).
II. Background
Plaintiff's complaint arises out of a claim against defendant for disability benefits under an employee benefits plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"). Defendant issued a Group Long Term Disability Insurance Policy ("LTD policy"), Policy No. 125105-0002, to Pitcairn Enterprises, Inc. ("Pitcairn").
At all times material hereto, plaintiff was employed as a salesperson with Pitcairn. As an employee of Pitcairn, plaintiff is a Covered Person under the LTD policy as that term is defined in the policy. On September 8, 1999, plaintiff underwent a total left knee replacement, and thereafter applied for and was approved for LTD benefits by defendant. On March 31, 2002, defendant terminated plaintiff's benefits.
On December 5, 2003, defendant filed a Petition in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for Removal to Federal Court. On December 16, 2003, defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss UnumProvident Corporation as a Named Defendant and Counts II-III of plaintiff's complaint. Defendant claims that Counts II and III of plaintiff's complaint are preempted by ERISA and thus should be dismissed.
III. Discussion
The first issue presented here is defendant's claim that UnumProvident Corporation is an improper party to this action, and therefore should be dismissed as a named defendant. Defendant claims that UnumProvident Corporation, incorrectly designated as "UNUM PROVIDENT CORPORATION" in the caption, did not issue the LTD policy at issue in this case. As proof of this claim Defendant refers to the first page of the policy which contained the clause: "in this Policy "we," "us," and "our" mean Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company." (See page 1 of Exhibit A to plaintiff's complaint). In defendant's Draft Order defendant requested that the correct party be inserted in the caption in place of UnumProvident. Plaintiff does not oppose defendant's requested amendment to change the name of the defendant, as it appears in the caption, to Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company.
Based upon the pleadings and plaintiff's concession that Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company constitutes the proper defendant in this case, the Court finds that UnumProvident is an improper party. However, it is unclear from the pleadings how UnumProvident and Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company are related and whether UnumProvident has the authority to make Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company a party to this litigation. Therefore, the Court cannot merely change the name as it appears in the caption, as defendant suggests. The Court is also unaware of any legal basis permitting it to substitute one defendant for another without first making service on the second defendant. Hence, the Court will dismiss plaintiff's complaint against the defendant, but will grant plaintiff leave to file a motion to amend pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, so that plaintiff may amend his complaint to include the proper party. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15 (leave to amend by court should be freely given when justice so requires).
While this Court is aware of the affidavit attached to defendant's motion to dismiss, of Susan N. Roth describing the relationship between UnumProvident Corporation and Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company, this is not within the scope of documents that this Court may consider in deciding a motion to dismiss. See Jordan, 20 F.3d at 1261 (holding that on motion to dism iss a court may look only to the facts alleged in the complaint and its attachments).
Assuming Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint, Defendant may raise by way of a renewed motion any issue not considered at this time.
An appropriate Order follows.