MCGUIRE v. HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM OPINION/ORDER denying 15 Motion to Dismiss; that defendant shall answer the Amended Complaint within 21 days. Signed by Judge Kevin McNulty on 2/21/17. (DD, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Civ. No. 16-1566 (KM)

SHANNON PASTER MCGUIRE,
Plaintiff,

:

MEMORANDUM OPINION and
ORDER

V.

HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

MCNULTY, U.S.D.J.:
The plaintiff, Shannon Paster McGuire, has filed an Amended Complaint
(ECF no. 9, referred to herein as the Complaint), claiming that the defendant,
Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company, wrongfully terminated her long
term disability insurance benefits after paying them for some five years. This
matter comes before the court on Hartford’ motion (ECF no. 15) to dismiss
Count 2 of this ERISA Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated herein, the
motion will be denied.
Count 1 of the Complaint asserts a claim under ERISA section
502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. § 1 132(a)(1)(B). It alleges that Hartford’s decision
terminating benefits was arbitrary and capricious, was not based on
substantial evidence, was reached without full and fair review, and was
infected by a conflict of interest. Count 1 demands a declaration of disability
and payment of long term disability benefits.

§

Count 2 of the Complaint asserts a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA
502(a)(3)(B), 29 U.S.C. § 1 132(a)(3)(B). It alleges that Hartford failed to
1

properly investigate the claim, failed to give proper cons
ideration to the
evidence, disregarded the opinion of McGuire’s treating phys
icians, and failed
to consider the award of Social Security Disability bene
fits. Count 2 demands
“all equitable ‘make whole’ relief.”
Hartford essentially seeks dismissal of Count 2 because
it is duplicative
of Count 1. There is case law, having its origin in See
Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516
U.S. 489, 507-15, 116 S. Ct. 1065 (1986), which disal
lows redundant claims
under

§ 502(a)(1)(B) and 502(a)(3). It is true that these two statutory sections

reflect a law/equity distinction, and that the purely
legal remedy of damages is
not available under § 502(a)(3). See icL; Great-West Life
& Annuity Ins. Co. u.
Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 122 S. Ct. 708 (2002) (dam
ages at law unavailable
under § 502(a)(3)). In positioning the case for trial,
the Court will surely
eliminate redundant claims. In doing so, it will
require a demonstration of how
the relief demanded under Count 2 differs, if at
all, from that under Count 1.
Now, however, we are at the pleading stage. The
Complaint pleads that it
seeks damages under Count 1, and equitable “mak
e whole” remedies under
Count 2. Count 2 is explicitly pled “[i]n the alternativ
e,” which is generally
1

ERISA section 502(a), 29 U.S.C.
§ 1132(a), which encompasses the
subsections cited in Counts 1 and 2, , reads as
follows:
(a) Persons empowered to bring a civil actio
n. A civil action may be
brought—
(1) by a participant or beneficiary—
(B) to recover benefits due to him under the term
s of his plan, to
enforce his rights under the terms of the plan
, or to clarify his rights to
future benefits under the terms of the plan;
(3) by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary (A)
to enjoin any act
or practice which violates any provision of this
subchapter or the terms
of the plan, or (B) to obtain other appropriate equi
table relief (i) to redress
such violations or (ii) to enforce any provisions of
this subchapter or the
terms of the plan.

2

permissible under the Federal Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d). For now, that
is
enough; I will not force a premature election. Once discovery is complete,
it
may turn out that Count 1 is viable, that Count 2 is viable, that both are,
or
that neither is. The Court is reluctant to dismiss a count as redundant, only
to
face a later contention that the remaining count must be dismissed for some
other reason. Claims of redundancy, if not moot, may best be handled on
a full
record. See Shah v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield, Civ. No. 15-8590, 2016
WL
4499551 at *10 (D.N.J. Aug. 25, 2016) (finding dismissal premature, and
holding that Varity does not create a rule precluding the assertion of alterna
tive
claims or requiring dismissal at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage of duplicative claims
under ERISA

§ 502(a)(1)(B) and 502(a)(3)).

Hartford’s motion to dismiss Count 2 is therefore denied, but without
prejudice to renewal of its contentions in the context of summary judgment.
ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS this 21st day of February, 2017
ORDERED that the motion of Hartford (ECF no. 15) to dismiss the
Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6), is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that defendant shall answer the Amended Complaint within
21 days.

H N. KEVIN MCNULTY,

3

U.S>I