Opinion
8:01CV529.
April 24, 2002.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count II, Filing No. 9, of plaintiffs' complaint. I have carefully reviewed the motion, brief in support, brief in opposition, and relevant case law, and I conclude that the motion to dismiss should be denied.
Plaintiffs are husband and wife. Plaintiff Kevin Mohr was a participant in an employee welfare benefit plan through his employer, Yant Equipment. Defendant Benicorp carried the group policy covering the plaintiffs. Plaintiff Jodi Mohr became ill and underwent treatment. Her claims were denied by defendant and a decision was made by defendant to terminate the plaintiffs' coverage. Defendant has refused to pay benefits or reinstate coverage.
I must deny the motion to dismiss unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiffs can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that might entitle them to relief. Parnes v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 122 F.3d 539, 545-46 (8th Cir. 1997); Fusco v. Xerox Corp, 676 F.2d 332, 334 (8th Cir. 1982). The complaint, Filing No. 1, alleges two causes of action. The first cause of action states that defendant wrongfully failed to pay insurance claims on behalf of plaintiffs in the amount of $25,777.48, in violation 29 U.S.C. § 1132, an action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), to recover benefits under the plan. The second cause of action alleges that defendant Benicorp breached its fiduciary duties by rescinding coverage on the plaintiffs in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1182. The plaintiffs "request an order permanently enjoining Benicorp from rescinding health insurance coverage in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1182 or from otherwise violating ERISA, for a mandatory injunction requiring that Benicorp retroactively reinstate Plaintiff's coverage. . . ." Filing No. 1 at 6.
Defendant contends that causes of action one and two are the same and, therefore, cause of action two should be dismissed. Plaintiffs contend that the relief requested in these two causes of action are different, and thus both causes of action should be allowed to proceed. I agree with the plaintiffs. The first cause of action asks for monetary relief for payment of unpaid claims. The second cause of action asks for injunctive rather than monetary relief. Where a beneficiary is unable to obtain the required relief in other causes of action, the Supreme Court has held that a claim for breach of fiduciary duty is an appropriate claim to obtain the needed remedy. Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489, 514 (1996). The Eighth Circuit has addressed this issue and determined that such a separate cause of action is appropriate if plaintiff is claiming different relief than the plan benefits due from the plan. Hall v. Lhaco, Inc., 140 F.3d 1190, 1197 (8th Cir. 1998) (one claim for benefits and a second claim for injunctive relief and an accounting); Wald v. Southwestern Bell Corp., 83 F.3d 1002, 1006 (8th Cir. 1996) (plaintiff sought no different relief under claim for benefits and claim for fiduciary breach, so cause of action not appropriate).
After carefully reviewing the complaint, I conclude that the plaintiffs in this case ask for distinct types of relief in each cause of action. As plaintiffs point out, payment of the benefits will not make them whole. They are also asking for reinstatement of the terminated policy. Consequently, I conclude that the plaintiffs have stated a claim for equitable relief in their second cause of action. The motion to dismiss will be denied.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's motion to dismiss, Filing No. 9, is hereby denied.