Jackson v. Hartford Life Insurance
Filing
18
ORDER granting 14 Motion for Summary Judgment; Dismissing Complaint With Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAWN JACKSON,
Plaintiff(s),
CASE NUMBERS: 12-12713
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
v.
THE HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE,
Defendant(s).
/
ORDER
I.
INTRODUCTION
Dawn Jackson filed a one count Complaint alleging Hartford Life and Insurance
Company (incorrectly named as “The Hartford Life Insurance”)(“Hartford”) violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001, et
seq., by wrongfully denying her disability benefits under her Long Term Disability Plan
(the “Plan”).
Hartford filed a motion for summary judgment saying this litigation is barred by
the statute of limitations. Jackson concedes that the Plan’s three year statute of
limitations is applicable; but, she challenges when the limitations period began to run.
Jackson says the statute of limitations began to run from the date she exhausted
all administrative remedies: June 24, 2009. Hartford says that statute of limitations ran
from the date it requested Proof of Loss: May 27, 2008. Proof of Loss documentation is
defined in the Plan as “any and all medical information, including x-ray films and
photocopies of medical records, including histories, physical, mental or diagnostic
1
examination, and treatment notes.”
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s; this dispute is governed by the Plan, which
says that the statute of limitations begins to run from thirty days after the request for
Proof of Loss is made.
II.
BACKGROUND
Hartford paid Jackson benefits for four years. Then on May 27, 2008, Hartford
wrote to Jackson requiring that she provide Proof of Loss documents. Jackson did so.
Hartford made no other request of Jackson to provide Proof of Loss documentation.
On November 7, 2008, Hartford wrote Jackson and told her that benefits would
be discontinued because she was no longer disabled. Jackson appealed. Hartford
affirmed its decision to deny benefits. Jackson filed this lawsuit on June 21, 2012.
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court will grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that 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); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
250-57 (1986). On a motion for summary judgment, the facts must be viewed in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith
Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
A fact is material for purposes of summary judgment if proof of that fact would
have the effect of establishing or refuting an essential element of the cause of action or
a defense advanced by the parties. Kendall v. Hoover Co., 751 F.2d 171, 174 (6th Cir.
1984).
2
IV.
ANALYSIS
It is undisputed that claims under the Plan are governed by the contractual
statute of limitations. Jackson’s brief in response to Hartford’s motion for summary
judgment, says “In short, Plaintiff does not argue relative to the reasonableness of a
three year statute of limitations. The crux of the case of course is when the statute of
limitations began to run.”
In Rice v. Jefferson Pilot Financial, 578 F.3d 450 (6th Cir. 2009), the Sixth Circuit
held that when an ERISA claim is governed by a contractual statute of limitations, courts
must look to the plain language of the contract to determine when the statute of
limitations accrues. Id. at 455. The court found that because the plain language of the
contract says “no legal action may be brought more than three years after proof of claim
is required to be given[;]” the plain language of the Plan mandated when the statute of
limitations accrues. Id.
This Plan’s plain language is also given its literal meaning: “Legal action cannot
be taken . . . three years after the time written Proof of Loss is required to be furnished
according to the terms of the Policy . . . .” Under the Plan, Proof of Loss is required
thirty days from the date of request when benefits are being paid; the Plan says “We
may request Proof of Loss throughout your Disability. In such cases, we must receive
the proof within 30 days of the request.”
Proof of Loss was requested on May 27, 2008, and the three year statute of
limitations began to run thirty days from that date: June 27, 2008. Three years from
June 27, 2008, is June 27, 2011. This action was untimely filed on June 21, 2012.
Jackson says that the statute of limitations must be tolled during the
3
administrative process. But, the Sixth Circuit implicitly held that the administrative
process does not automatically toll the statute of limitations. See id. (counting the
administrative process when determining whether the statute of limitations had expired).
Jackson makes no showing that she is entitled to equitable tolling. The Supreme
Court holds that to prevail on an equitable tolling claim, a plaintiff must show "(1) that he
has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance
stood in his way." Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418, 125 S. Ct. 1807, 161 L. Ed.
2d 669 (2005).
Even if the Court were to equitably toll the statute of limitations, Jackson’s claim
would still be dismissed. The statute of limitations began to run on June 27, 2008, thirty
days after Hartford requested Proof of Loss. Jackson did not start the administrative
process until November 7, 2008, when Hartford notified Jackson that her benefits would
be terminated. The administrative process ended on June 24, 2009, when Hartford
affirmed its denial of benefits. Between November 7, 2008 and June 24, 2009, exactly
seven months, 17 days passed which might be subject to tolling; and thus, could be
credited to the three year statute of limitations. Three years, June 27, 2011 -- plus
seven months, 17 days -- would have put Jackson’s “file by date” at February 11, 2012;
she did not file suit until June 21, 2012. Jackson’s claim would still be untimely.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is
DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
4
Dated: June 19, 2013
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of
record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on
June 19, 2013.
S/Carol A. Pinegar
Deputy Clerk
5
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?