Daniel v. Eaton Corp.

9 Citing briefs

  1. Loffredo et al v. Daimler AG et al

    RESPONSE to 57 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint Defendant Thomas Lasorda's Brief In Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion For Leave To Amend Complaint

    Filed March 22, 2013

    (Dkt. No. 57 at 9); Gore v. El Paso Energy Corp. Long Term Disability Plan, 477 F.3d 833, 842 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding employer not liable where it did not exercise discretionary control over plan administration); Daniel v. Eaton Corp., 839 F.2d 263, 266 (6th Cir. 1988) (finding defendant must be “shown to control administration of a plan”); LifeCare Mgmt. Servs., LLC v. Ins. Mgmt.

  2. Briggs v. National Fire Union Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA et al

    BRIEF in Support of MOTION to dismiss for failure to state a claim 28

    Filed January 31, 2017

    The Sixth Circuit has unambiguously held that “[u]nless an employer is shown to control administration of a plan, it is not a proper party defendant in an action concerning benefits” under an ERISA plan. Daniel v. Eaton Corp., 839 F.2d 263, 266 (6th Cir. 1988) (emphasis added). “When an insurance company administers claims for employee welfare benefit plans and has authority to grant or deny claims, the insurance company is a ‘fiduciary’ for ERISA purposes ….

  3. Woerner v. Fram Group Operations, Llc et al

    BRIEF in Opposition

    Filed November 14, 2016

    Hosp. v. All Shore, lnc.,514 F.3d 300, 308 (3d Cir. 2008); Graden v. Conexant Sys. únc.,496F.3d291, 301 (3d Cir.2007); see also Jass v. Prudential Health Care Plan, únc.,88F.3d1482, 1490 (7th Cir. 1996); Daniel v. Eaton Corp.,839 F.2d 263,266 (6th Cir.), cert. denied,488 U.S. 826 (1988); Sullivanv.

  4. Templin et al v. Independence Blue Cross et al

    Memorandum in Opposition to DEFENDANTS' INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSS & QCC INSURANCE COMPANY'S 20 MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint

    Filed January 5, 2010

    Moreover, a number of federal circuits have concluded that in an action alleging wrongful denial of benefits under ERISA, the plan administrator is a proper defendant. See, e.g., Hamilton v. Allen-Bradley Co., 244 F.3d 819, 824 (11th Cir. 2001) (noting that § 1132(a)(1)(B) “confers a right to sue the plan administrator for recovery of benefits”); Hall v. LHACO, Inc., 140 F.3d 1190, 1196 (8th Cir. 1998) (determining that plan administrator is a proper party); Taft v. Equitable Fin. Co., 9 F.3d 1469, 1471 (9th Cir. 1993) (same) and Daniel v. Eaton Corp., 839 F.2d 263, 266 (6th Cir. 1988) (noting that the proper party in an ERISA action is the party that “is shown to control the administration of the plan”). The Third Circuit has not held differently.

  5. Templin et al v. Independence Blue Cross et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed January 4, 2010

    Moreover, a number of federal circuits have concluded that in an action alleging wrongful denial of benefits under ERISA, the plan administrator is a proper defendant. See, e.g., Hamilton v. Allen-Bradley Co., 244 F.3d 819, 824 (11th Cir. 2001) (noting that § 1132(a)(1)(B) “confers a right to sue the plan administrator for recovery of benefits”); Hall v. LHACO, Inc., 140 F.3d 1190, 1196 (8th Cir. 1998) (determining that plan administrator is a proper party); Taft v. Equitable Fin. Co., 9 F.3d 1469, 1471 (9th Cir. 1993) (same) and Daniel v. Eaton Corp., 839 F.2d 263, 266 (6th Cir. 1988) (noting that the proper party in an ERISA action is the party that “is shown to control the administration of the plan”). Plaintiffs submit that where there is so much authority from other Circuits supporting their position, the Court should reject CareFirst’s argument, even if, as CareFirst contends, Curcio v. John Hancock Mut.

  6. Morris v. Microsoft Corporation et al

    MEMORANDUM in Support of 112 MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed July 20, 2018

    Plaintiffs do not set forth in the Second Amended Complaint why they believe Prudential Financial, Inc. is a necessary party. It is not and should be dismissed from the case if any of Plaintiffs’ claims are allowed to proceed. See, e.g., Daniel v. Eaton Corp., 839 F.2d 263, 266 (6th Cir. 1988) (stating that proper party in ERISA action is the one that “is shown to control the administration of the plan”). IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Prudential and Prudential Financial’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety and dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. Specifically, the Court should dismiss Counts VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and XI of the Second Amended Complaint and grant any further relief deemed just and appropriate.

  7. Loffredo et al v. Daimler AG et al

    REPLY to Response re MOTION to Dismiss in Cerberus Action

    Filed April 6, 2011

    Courts consistently recognize § 502(a)(1)(B) claims for benefits as breach of contract claims, with the benefit plan documents Case 2:10-cv-14181-JAC-VMM Document 43 Filed 04/06/11 Page 13 of 18 -11- constituting the contract. (Motion to Dismiss p. 14) (citing Crown Point Dental Care, LLC v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 2008 WL 4762367 *2 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 24, 2008)). Thus, the proper defendant in a Section 502(a)(1)(B) claim for benefits is the party offering the benefits. See Daniel v. Eaton Corp., 839 F.2d 263, 266 (6th Cir. 1988); Feinberg v. RM Acquisition, LLC, Slip. Op. 10-1890 pp. 3-4 (7th Cir. Jan. 6, 2011); Opposition Brief p. 14 (citing Sixth Circuit case holding that employee may proceed under 502(a)(1)(B) in action to recover benefits due from the plan administrator) (emphasis added). A trustee such as State Street, which is not the party offering plan benefits, has no authority to interpret plan terms, and does not determine benefits eligibility, is not a proper defendant in a § 502(a)(1)(B) claim. Furthermore, plaintiffs here do not have a viable § 502(a)(1)(B) claim against State Street even if they could arguably seek “benefits due under the terms of the plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). Because benefits provided by top-hat plans do not statutorily vest, they can only vest contractually.

  8. Haydel et al v. HealthSmart Benefit Solutions, Inc.

    REPLY to Response to Motion

    Filed June 10, 2009

    See also Layes v. Mead Corp., 132 F.3d 1246, 1249 (8th Cir. 1998) (proper party against whom claim for ERISA benefits may be brought is party that controls administration of the plan); Garren v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 114 F.3d 186, 187 (11th Cir. 1997) (same); Daniel v. Eaton Corp., 839 F.2d 263, 266 (6th Cir. 1988) (employer can be proper party defendant in action under section 1132(a)(1)(B) if shown to control plan administration). Notably, the Curcio court ultimately found the employer liable, not under section 1132(a)(1)(B), but under section 1132(a)(3) for making misrepresentations to its employees regarding the scope of its new life insurance plan.

  9. Haydel et al v. HealthSmart Benefit Solutions, Inc.

    RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition

    Filed June 2, 2009

    Indeed, HealthSmart’s motion focuses solely on the Haydels’ claim for payment of medical benefits pursuant to 29 U.S.C.A. § 1132(a)(1)(B). Case 2:09-cv-03032-LMA-JCW Document 5 Filed 06/02/09 Page 1 of 4 See Curcio v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., 33 F.3d 226 (3 Cir. 1994); see1 rd also Layes v. Mead Corp., 132 F.3d 1246 (8 Cir. 1998); Garren v. John Hancock Mutual Lifeth Insurance Co., 114 F.3d 186 (11 Cir. 1997); Daniel v. Eaton Corp., 839 F.2d 263 (6 Cir.th th 1998). 2 Thus, in the event this Honorable Court grants HealthSmart’s motion, the Haydels’ claims under 29 U.S.C.A. § 1132(c)(1) and their claims for other incidental and general damages still remain.