From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taggart Corp. v. Life Health Benefits Admin

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
May 30, 1980
617 F.2d 1208 (5th Cir. 1980)

Summary

holding that small proprietors' collective purchase of health benefits from a multiple employers' trust does not establish a plan under ERISA

Summary of this case from Custer v. Pan American Life Ins. Co.

Opinion

No. 79-3285. Summary Calendar.

Fed.R.App.P. 34(a), 5th Cir. Local R. 18.

May 30, 1980.

Rowland Keim, David H. Graves, Houston, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Louis L. Joseph, Carin A. Clauss, Sol., Monica Gallagher, Norman P. Goldberg, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., Dale Wootton, Dallas, Tex., amicus curiae.

Fulbright Jaworski, Ronald D. Secrest, Houston, Tex., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before HILL, GARZA and THOMAS A. CLARK, Circuit Judges.




The Security Multiple Employers Trust [SMET], appellee, provides group insurance to employers too small to qualify for group rates on their own. Employers subscribe to SMET and thereby become members of SMET's "group" of subscribers; SMET then pools the "group's" premiums and purchases insurance on their behalf. Taggart Corp., appellant, whose sole employee is Stanley M. Kansas, appellant, subscribed to SMET in 1976. Kansas and his family thereupon enjoyed health insurance protection, via SMET, from a carrier of SMET's choosing. Kansas claimed benefits for his wife in March, 1977. SMET subsequently informed Kansas that the trust carrier was denying coverage because of alleged misrepresentations in his insurance application. Kansas responded by bringing the instant lawsuit under 29 U.S.C.A. § 1132 (West 1975), which extends federal jurisdiction to enforce benefits due beneficiaries of federally regulated "employee welfare benefit plan[s]." 29 U.S.C.A. § 1002(1) (West 1975). The district court held that SMET was not such a "plan," within the statutory definition, and accordingly granted defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Taggert [sic] Corp. v. Efros, 475 F. Supp. 124 (S.D.Tex. 1979). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). Taggart and Kansas appeal.

Whether this insurance case belongs in federal court turns on whether SMET is covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001- 1381 (West 1975 Supp. 1979). Appellants urge that SMET is an "employee welfare benefit plan," by which they mean

any plan, fund, or program which was heretofore or is hereafter established or maintained by an employer or by an employee organization, or by both, to the extent that such plan, fund, or program was established or is maintained for the purpose of providing for its participants or their beneficiaries, through the purchase of insurance or otherwise, (A) medical, surgical, or hospital care or benefits, or benefits in the event of sickness, accident, disability, death or unemployment . . . .

29 U.S.C.A. § 1002(1) (West 1975). We agree with both the district court and the Secretary of Labor, who filed an Amicus Brief, that SMET was neither established nor maintained by a statutory "employer" or "employee organization," see 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1002(4), 1002(5) (West 1975), and hence falls without the scope of ERISA.

SMET is a proprietary enterprise, established and operated by independent businessmen for their personal profit. As a kind of insurance mutual fund, SMET acts as mere conduit for hundreds of unrelated subscriber customers, forwarding premium payments to a group insurer. Neither Taggart Corp. nor any other employer participates in SMET's day-to-day operation or administration. The venture was established and is "maintained by entrepreneurs for the purpose of marketing products or services to others. . . . [Such an enterprise is neither] established [n]or maintained by the appropriate parties to confer ERISA jurisdiction." H.R. Rep. No. 94-1785, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 48 (1977), quoted in Private Medical Care Foundation, Inc. v. Califano, 451 F. Supp. 450, 461 (W.D.Okl. 1977). See Wayne Chemical, Inc. v. Columbus Agency Service Corp., 567 F.2d 692 (7th Cir. 1977); Bell v. Employee Security Benefit Association, 437 F. Supp. 382 (D.Kan. 1977).

While agreeing with the preceding conclusion, the Secretary of Labor urges us nonetheless to uphold federal jurisdiction in this case by declaring that Taggart Corp.'s subscription to SMET itself "established a single employer welfare plan." Brief for Secretary of Labor as Amicus Curiae at 15. We reject this suggestion. Considering the history, structure and purposes of ERISA, we cannot believe that that Act regulates bare purchases of health insurance where, as here, the purchasing employer neither directly nor indirectly owns, controls, administers or assumes responsibility for the policy or its benefits. This conclusion draws support from various quarters.

ERISA's legislative history demonstrates that its drafters were principally concerned with abuses occurring in respect of private pension assets. "The assets of private plans, estimated to be in excess of $150 billion, constitute the only large private accumulation of funds which [sic] have [sic] escaped the imprimatur of effective federal regulation." H.R. Rep. No. 93-533, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 3, reprinted in U.S. Code Cong. Admin.News, pp. 4639, 4641. To forestall misappropriation and misuse of such funds, Congress mandated that all employee benefit plans be established in the form of a trust, 29 U.S.C.A. § 1103 (West 1975), subject to federal standards of fiduciary duty. 29 U.S.C.A. § 1104 (West 1975). Congress acted further to assure the integrity of employee benefits by mandating annual reports, 29 U.S.C.A. § 1023 (West 1975), containing both actuarial data and certified financial statements. For enforcement purposes, ERISA "plans" are suable entities. 29 U.S.C.A. § 1132(d)(1) (West 1975). In light of this statutory framework, we think the words "plan, fund, or program," 29 U.S.C.A. § 1002(1) (West 1975), cannot fairly be said to describe Taggart's subscription to SMET.

The supposed Taggart "plan" has no assets and is liable for no benefits. There is nothing to be placed in trust, so there is no trust. The corporation did no more than make payments to a purveyor of insurance, patently for tax reasons. See I.R.C. §§ 104-06; Treas. Reg. § 1.162-10, 26 C.F.R. § 1.162-10 (1978). There simply exist no assets for ERISA's statutory safeguards to protect. Nor do the statute's vesting and funding goals militate in favor of finding a "plan" here, since those provisions expressly except "welfare" plans from their coverage. 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1051(1), 1081(a)(1) (West 1975). On the other hand, Congress has elsewhere clearly distinguished between "health plans" and "health insurance." I.R.C. §§ 105(a), 105(e). As with pension plans, see H.R. Rep. No. 93-807, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 1, reprinted in U.S. Code Cong. Admin.News, pp. 4670, 4670; compare 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1052-81 (West 1975) with I.R.C. §§ 410- 12, legislative reform of welfare plans has been effected in part through amendment of the Internal Revenue Code. See Revenue Act of 1978, § 366, 26 U.S.C.A. § 105(h) (West Supp. 1979). These complementary Code provisions may reasonably be construed in pari materia with ERISA reforms located in Title 29. See Erlenbaugh v. United States, 409 U.S. 239, 243-44, 93 S.Ct. 477, 480, 34 L.Ed.2d 446 (1972). In this connection, we observe that I.R.C. § 105 distinguishes between "accident or health insurance," § 105(a), and "accident or health plan[s]." § 105(e). That Congress has thus chosen to treat the two separately reinforces our conclusion that ERISA "plans" are broader in concept than pure insurance transactions of the sort involved here.

It is not surprising that appellants have refrained from adopting the Secretary's line of argument. Taggart Corp. has not taken the first step toward bringing a "single employer benefit plan" into compliance with ERISA. Acceptance of the Secretary's position conceivably could result in Taggart's criminal prosecution. 29 U.S.C.A. § 1131 (West 1975). No such anomalous result is required on the facts of this case. We hold that neither SMET nor Taggart's subscription to SMET constitutes a "plan, fund, or program," within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.A. § 1002(1) (West 1975), and that appellants accordingly have no right of action under 29 U.S.C.A. § 1132 (West 1975). Federal subject matter jurisdiction being thus absent, the district court properly dismissed appellants' pendent claims as well. E.g., Daniels v. All Steel Equipment, Inc., 590 F.2d 111, 114 (5th Cir. 1979); Morgan v. Odem, 552 F.2d 147, 149 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam). Our decision, of course, leaves appellants free to pursue their insurance claims in an appropriate state court. See, e.g., Hitt v. City of Pasadena, 561 F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam); Mann v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith, Inc., 488 F.2d 75, 76 (5th Cir. 1973) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Taggart Corp. v. Life Health Benefits Admin

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
May 30, 1980
617 F.2d 1208 (5th Cir. 1980)

holding that small proprietors' collective purchase of health benefits from a multiple employers' trust does not establish a plan under ERISA

Summary of this case from Custer v. Pan American Life Ins. Co.

holding that a multiple employer trust, a "proprietary enterprise" that acted "as a mere conduit for hundreds of unrelated subscriber customers," which did not participate in the "day-to-day operation or administration" of the trust, was not "established or maintained" by an "employer" under ERISA

Summary of this case from Mdphysicians Associates v. State Bd. of Ins

finding that the employer acted as a mere conduit by forwarding payments to a group insurer

Summary of this case from Stern v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Co.

ruling that a for-profit organization which "provide[d] group insurance to employers too small to qualify for group rates on their own" was not an "employee organization"

Summary of this case from Papale v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co.

noting that "[t]he corporation did no more than make payments to a purveyor of insurance, patently for tax reasons"

Summary of this case from Shearer v. Southwest Serv

In Taggart, where a group of small proprietors purchased health insurance for themselves as a group to realize the purchasing power of a larger purchaser, the court concluded that the "bare" purchase of health insurance did not establish a plan, and that the group, operating essentially like a mutual fund, was not an employer.

Summary of this case from Custer v. Pan American Life Ins. Co.

In Taggart, the Fifth Circuit established that "bare purchases of health insurance" that involve no owner control, administration, or responsibility for the policy or benefits, were insufficient to create an ERISA plan. Under Taggart, the plaintiffs argue, they did not create an ERISA plan and the Donovan analysis is inapplicable.

Summary of this case from International Resources v. New York Life Ins. Co.

In Taggart Corp. v. Life and Health Benefits Admin., Inc., 617 F.2d 1208, 1211 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1030, 101 S.Ct. 1739, 68 L.Ed.2d 225 (1980), we held that an employer's "bare purchase" of an insurance policy does not establish an ERISA plan.

Summary of this case from Kidder v. H B Marine, Inc.

noting that ERISA does not regulate the purchase of health insurance if "the purchasing employer neither directly nor indirectly owns, controls, administers or assumes responsibility for the policy or its benefits"

Summary of this case from Gahn v. Allstate Life Insurance

In Taggart, relied upon by the widow, the employer acted solely as a channel for payments from the employee to a trust fund which purchased the group insurance.

Summary of this case from Wickman v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co.

In Taggart the sole employee of Taggart Corp., the employer that had subscribed to SMET, claimed benefits from SMET's insurer, and the insurer denied coverage because of alleged misrepresentations in the insurance application made by Taggart's employee.

Summary of this case from Donovan v. Dillingham

In Taggart, the company employing a single employee sought to purchase a single-employee policy at a discount by pooling with other employers. Here it appears that there is a much larger number of employees covered by the policies.

Summary of this case from De Mascorro v. Cigna Health & Life Ins. Co.

In Taggart v. Life and Health Benefits Administration, Inc., 617 F.2d 1208, 1210 (5th Cir. 1980), the Court of Appeals held that the Security Multiple Employers Trust (SMET), which provided group insurance to employers too small to qualify for group rates, did not fall within the scope of ERISA. Employers became members of SMET's group of subscribers, and SMET pooled the group's premiums and purchased insurance on their behalf.

Summary of this case from Talley v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana

In Taggart Corp. v. Life and Health Benefits Admin., 617 F.2d 1208 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1030, 101 S.Ct. 1739, 68 L.Ed.2d 225 (1981), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the Security Multiple Employers Trust ("SMET"), a provider of group insurance to employers, was neither established nor maintained by an employer, pointing to the fact that no employer "participates in SMET's day to day operation or administration."

Summary of this case from Intern. Ass'n of Entrep. of Am. v. Foster

In Taggart, supra, the Court analyzed the question of "whether this insurance case belongs in Federal Court" 617 F.2d at 1210, and concluding that it did not, held "Our decision, of course, leave appellants free to pursue their insurance claims in an appropriate state court."

Summary of this case from Suggs v. Pan American Life Ins. Co.

In Taggart, supra, the Court stated "It is not surprising that appellants have refrained from adopting the Secretary's line of argument.

Summary of this case from Suggs v. Pan American Life Ins. Co.

In Taggart, supra, the Secretary of Labor made basically the same argument as Memorial Hospital. However the Taggart court refused to hold that subscribing to a MET established a benefit plan. Donovan, supra, also declined to hold that an insurance policy constituted a plan but described the purchase of insurance as "only a method of implementing a plan, fund, or program and [as] evidence of the existence of a plan but... not itself a plan."

Summary of this case from Suggs v. Pan American Life Ins. Co.

In Taggart, for example, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held ERISA does not regulate "bare purchases of health insurance where... the purchasing employer neither directly nor indirectly owns, controls, administers, or assumes responsibility for the policy or its benefits."

Summary of this case from Curtiss v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co.

noting corporation did no more than make payments to a purveyor of insurance

Summary of this case from Curtiss v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co.

noting that in case of employer merely purchasing policy, no trust assets existed for ERISA to protect

Summary of this case from Curtiss v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co.

In Taggart, the sole employee of Taggart Corporation subscribed to a MET for the purpose of obtaining coverage for himself and his family.

Summary of this case from Foxworth v. Durham Life Ins. Co.

In Taggart, the court stated, "we cannot believe that act regulates bare purchases of health insurance when, as here, the purchasing employer neither directly nor indirectly owns, controls or assumes responsibility for the policy or its benefits."

Summary of this case from Robertson v. Gem Ins. Co.

In Taggart, a corporation purchased insurance for its sole employee, and the court held ERISA does not regulate "bare purchases of health insurance where, as here, the purchasing employer neither directly nor indirectly owns, controls, administers or assumes responsibility for the policy or its benefits."

Summary of this case from Rizzi v. Blue Cross of So. California

In Taggart Corp., the United States Court of Appeals for the former Fifth Circuit used clear and simple criteria to determine the existence of an employee benefit plan under ERISA.

Summary of this case from Golden Bear Family Restaurants v. Murray
Case details for

Taggart Corp. v. Life Health Benefits Admin

Case Details

Full title:THE TAGGART CORPORATION ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. LIFE AND HEALTH…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: May 30, 1980

Citations

617 F.2d 1208 (5th Cir. 1980)

Citing Cases

Suggs v. Pan American Life Ins. Co.

Hansen v. Continental Ins. Co., 940 F.2d at 978. The Hansen Court cited with approval language from Taggart…

Donovan v. Dillingham

The Secretary of Labor pursuant to his authority under ERISA § 502(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a), brought this…