Estate of Sean M. Boeckmann, By and Through Michael H. Boeckmann, Personal Representative v. Sprint/United Management Company et al

Filing 57

ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Sprint's Motion to Dismiss 53 is DENIED. (Written Opinion) Signed by The Hon. Paul A. Magnuson on 2/26/2018. (LLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Estate of Sean M. Boeckmann, by and
through Michael H. Boeckmann,
Personal Representative,

Civ. No. 17-2260 (PAM/SER)

Plaintiff,
v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Sprint/United Management Company,
and Hartford Life and Accident
Insurance Company,
Defendants.

This matter is before Court on Defendant Sprint/United Management Company’s
Motion to Dismiss. For the following reasons, the Motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Michael H. Boeckmann is the personal representative of Plaintiff Estate
of Sean M. Boeckmann.

The Complaint alleges that Sean Boeckmann worked at

Defendant Sprint/United Management Company, and that he had a life insurance policy
through his employment which was insured by Defendant Hartford Life and Accident
Insurance Company.

(Compl. (Docket No. 1.) ¶¶ 8-9.)

Mr. Boeckmann died in

November 2016, and Hartford denied the Estate’s claim for the proceeds of the life
insurance policy. (Id. ¶¶ 11, 13.) The Complaint asserts that Defendants violated the
Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1), by
failing to provide relevant documents when Plaintiff requested them.
Sprint now seeks dismissal of the single claim against it.

DISCUSSION
Sprint contends that Plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

According to Sprint, the Court lacks

jurisdiction because Sean Boeckmann was not a plan participant at the time of his death,
and therefore Plaintiff has no standing to bring any claims regarding the plan. In making
this argument, Sprint relies on documents purporting to show that Mr. Boeckmann
waived his entitlement to employer-sponsored life-insurance coverage.
The Court must be vigilant in determining “whether it has subject matter
jurisdiction in every case.” Hart v. United States, 630 F.3d 1085, 1089 (8th Cir. 2011).
And in making that determination, the Court may “weigh the evidence and satisfy itself
as to the existence of its power to hear the case.” Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724
730 (8th Cir. 1990) (quotation omitted). Indeed, “the existence of disputed material facts
will not preclude the trial court from evaluating for itself the merits of [a] jurisdictional
claim[].” Id. (quotation omitted).
These principles, however, are only tangentially applicable to the instant situation,
where the issue of jurisdiction and the substantive merits of the underlying claim are so
closely intertwined. In this case, the Court is reluctant to resolve the numerous disputed
facts that the undeveloped record presents.
Even if resolving disputed facts were appropriate, however, the Court is not
persuaded that the record is as clear as Sprint alleges.

While there are documents

indicating that Sean Boeckmann may have waived life-insurance coverage, there is other
evidence that may establish that he did not do so, or at least that he believed he
2

maintained such coverage.

Plaintiff has established standing to pursue a claim for

documents under ERISA. Should those documents establish that Sean Boeckmann was
not a plan participant at the time he died, Sprint can bring an appropriate motion.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Sprint’s Motion to Dismiss
(Docket No. 53) is DENIED.

s/ Paul A. Magnuson

Date: February 26, 2018

Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge

3