Griffin v. Seven Corners, Inc.
Filing
70
OPINION AND ORDER: Dr. Griffin's motion for summary judgment DE 34 is DENIED and Seven Corners' motion for summary judgment DE 37 is DENIED. The parties are GRANTED LEAVE to file additional, well developed and fully supported motions for summary judgment and can add any additional evidence in support on or before 5/17/21. Any responses are due on or before 6/16/21 and any replies by 7/1/21. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 3/15/21. (Copy mailed to pro se party). (nal)
USDC IN/ND case 4:18-cv-00007-PPS document 70 filed 03/15/21 page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE
W.A. GRIFFIN, M.D.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SEVEN CORNERS, INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
) CAUSE NO. 4:18-CV-7-PPS
)
)
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Dr. W.A. Griffin, and Defendant, Seven Corners, Inc., filed cross
motions for summary judgment in this case involving an international au pair who
purchased medical insurance for her job in the United States. [DE 34, 37.] Dr. Griffin, a
dermatologist who treated the au pair, claims during her pursuit for payment that she
asked Seven Corners to produce documents relating to the policy at issue, and its
failure to produce all of the requested documents results in her sole remaining claim in
this case that Dr. Griffin is entitled to recover statutory penalties under Section 502(c)(1)
of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”).
Summary judgment is only appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R.
CIV. P. 56(a). Here, there are several genuine issues of material facts that preclude
summary judgment.
The statute provides that:
Any administrator . . . who fails or refuses to comply with a request
USDC IN/ND case 4:18-cv-00007-PPS document 70 filed 03/15/21 page 2 of 4
for any information which such administrator is required by this
subchapter to furnish to a participant or beneficiary . . . by mailing the
material requested to the last known address of the requesting
participant or beneficiary within 30 days after such request may in the
court’s discretion be personally liable to such participant or
beneficiary in the amount of up to $100 a day from the date of such
failure or refusal, and the court may in its discretion order such other
relief as it deems proper.
29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1). But of course, for the ERISA disclosure provisions to apply, the plan
must be covered by ERISA.
Here, the relationship between the multiple entities involved is unclear and there
are genuine material disputes as to whether: the insurance policy at issue is covered
under ERISA; the healthcare plan obtained by the au pair came from an “employer” or
an “employee organization”; Seven Corners could be said to be working “in the interest
of an employer”; and the insurance policy was issued outside of the United States. See
29 U.S.C. § 1002(2)(4),(5).
Both parties have submitted some evidence as to whether the insurance policy is
an ERISA plan. Dr. Griffin produced two letters. The first is a letter from the Georgia
Office of Insurance and Safety Fire Commissioner to Dr. Griffin, which then attaches
another letter from United Healthcare addressed to the Office of Insurance and Safety
Fire Commissioner. [DE 41 at 7-8.] The letter from United Healthcare, dated September
26, 2017, states “[the au pair] is covered under a self-funded ERISA . . . Plan, established
and sponsored by SEVEN CORNERS - LLOYDS. United HealthCare Services, Inc.
provides administrative and claim payment services to the Plan.” [Id. at 8.] The letter
from the Georgia Office of Insurance and Safety Fire Commissioner to Dr. Griffin, dated
2
USDC IN/ND case 4:18-cv-00007-PPS document 70 filed 03/15/21 page 3 of 4
December 18, 2017, attaches this United Healthcare letter, and tells Dr. Griffin that
“[t]he employer offers a Self-funded healthcare benefit plan governed under ERISA.”
[DE 41 at 7.]
Seven Corners contends these letters are misguided and incorrect in the
conclusion that the policy is an ERISA plan, and submitted the agreement between
United Healthcare and Seven Corners (“Services Agreement Between Seven Corners,
Inc. and United Healthcare Services, Inc.”). [DE 39-1.] This agreement specifically
states that “Seven Corners further represents and warrants that none of the Plans
administered under this Agreement is or will be issued in the United States or
constitutes an employee benefits plan under ERISA.” [DE 39-1 at 6, ¶ 4.5.] These
competing pieces of evidence, with no further substantial analysis of whether the policy
is actually governed by ERISA, create a genuine dispute as to a material fact, rendering
summary judgment inappropriate. At this point, I cannot say as a matter of law that the
insurance policy at issue falls under ERISA.
Conclusion
For these reasons, Dr. Griffin’s motion for summary judgment [DE 34] is
DENIED and Seven Corners’ motion for summary judgment [DE 37] is DENIED. The
parties are GRANTED LEAVE to file additional, well developed and fully supported
motions for summary judgment, and can add any additional evidence in support, on or
before May 17, 2021. Any responses are due on or before June 16, 2021 and any replies
by July 1, 2021.
3
USDC IN/ND case 4:18-cv-00007-PPS document 70 filed 03/15/21 page 4 of 4
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: March 15, 2021.
/s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?