Sterling Collision Centers, Incorporated v. Kilduff

Filing 23

ORDER granting 15 Motion, Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

STERLING COLLISION CENTERS,
INC.,
Case No. 16-10103
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
Honorable John Corbett O’Meara
v.
KELLI KILDUFF,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S AUGUST 30, 2016 MOTION
This matter came before the court on plaintiff Sterling Collision Center’s August
30, 2016 Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Amended Counterclaim, Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings or by Default. Defendant Kelli Kilduff filed a response
October 4, 2016; and Plaintiff filed a reply brief October 10, 2016. Oral argument
was heard October 20, 2016. For the reasons that follow, the court will grant
Plaintiff’s motion in its entirety.
BACKGROUND FACTS
Plaintiff filed this action to enforce the terms of an ERISA Plan regarding the
Plan’s reimbursement and lien rights in a settlement fund currently being held in
escrow as security for that lien. There is no dispute that the Plan has paid $488,442.73

in benefits on defendant Kilduff’s behalf for her medical treatment and that the Plan
is entitled to reimbursement. In her counterclaim, however, Kilduff alleges that the
Plan should have paid more of her medical bills.
The plaintiff Plan filed a motion to dismiss Defendant’s amended counterclaim,
along with a motion for judgment on the pleadings or default regarding Plaintiff’s
complaint.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
There is no dispute that the plaintiff Plan is entitled to reimbursement as alleged
in its complaint. Therefore, the court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings.
Kilduff’s amended counterclaim seeks “equitable relief”; however, in her
response brief she specifically requests an award of money damages. “Therefore, as
a result of this[,] Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff was personally injured for over
$250,000.00.” Resp. br. at 19.
“ERISA restricts plan beneficiaries to equitable relief with no recourse to money
damages . . . . ERISA does not permit plan beneficiaries to claim money damages
from plan fiduciaries.” Helfrich v. PNC Bank, Kentucky, Inc., 267 F.3d 477, 481-83
(6th Cir. 2001). “Although they often dance around the word, what petitioners in fact
seek is nothing other than compensatory damages–money relief for all losses . . .
2

sustained as a result of the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. Money damages are, of
course, the classic form of legal relief.” Mertens v. Hewitt Assoc., 508 U.S. 248, 255
(1993) (emphasis in original).
To the extent Kilduff claims to be seeking equitable relief, declaring that the
medical providers should have paid additional sums from the Plan on her behalf, the
Plan’s lien and right to reimbursement against her would correspondingly increase the
same amount. The net effect of any additional payments to providers would not have
granted any relief to her under the Plan. Therefore, Kilduff fails to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted under ERISA.
Finally, Kilduff’s claim that the Plan should have paid for all of her medical
expenses is contradicted by the express language of the Plan itself, which states that
the Plan is not required to pay all of her medical expenses.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff Sterling Collision Center’s August 30,
2016 motion is GRANTED in its entirety.

s/John Corbett O'Meara
United States District Judge

Date: November 22, 2016
3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel
of record on this date, November 22, 2016, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

4