Chieffallo-Craig v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 2/18/2015. (c/m 2/18/2015 ca2s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

THERESA CHIEFF ALLO-CRAIG

*
*
*
*
*

V.

Civil No.- JFM-14-1199

*

RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INS. CO.

******
MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff has filed this pro se action under ERISA. Defendant originally moved to
dismiss the complaint because plaintiffs claims were barred by limitations. This court denied
the motion on the ground that the conducting of discovery might establish that plaintiff
reasonably was not aware of the limitations provision. The discovery deadline has now passed,
and defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment, again on limitations grounds. Plaintiff
has responded. The motion will be granted.
The very latest this action could have been filed was April 12, 2014. This date is three
years after the deadline for plaintiff to submit an internal appeal to defendant of its denial of her
claim. See Heimeshoffv. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 134 S. Ct. 604 (2013).
This action was not filed until April 15, 2Q14.
Plaintiff asserts, and the summary judgment record reflects, that although the action was
not filed until April15, 2014, she placed it in a mailbox on April12, 2014. The "mailbox rule"
applies to incarcerated prisoners who do not have the freedom of movement to go to the
courthouse to make a filing timely of a complaint. There is no reason to extend the rule to other
plaintiffs.

Likewise, the doctrine of equitable tolling does not apply. On several occasions
(

defendant offered to provide plaintiff with its claim file, which included a copy of plaintiffs
policy that itself included the provisions upon which plaintiff now relies. Moreover, plaintiff
could have requested a copy of her policy from her employer but did not do so .. Thus, there is no
evidence that defendant took action to deny plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to exercise her

.
nghts. I
A separate order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment and granting
judgment on its behalf is being entered herewith.

Date:

J,-j JOj J1rUnited States District Judge

1

In this litigation plaintiff has submitted a letter requesting a copy of her policy. The letter is not
included in the administrative record. Moreover, defendant denies having received it and its
provenance is suspicious. In any event, plaintiff was on notice from an attorney as early as
February 8, 2012, that she should request a copy of her policy from her previous employer, not
the insurance company, and there is no question that on several occasions defendant offered to
provide the claim file (including the policy) to plaintiff.