Keffer v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

Filing 22

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 10 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The Plaintiffs state law claims are DISMISSED. The Plaintiffmay, according to law, re-plead his complaint under ERISA's civil enforcement mechanism. The Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs demand for punitive damages and to strike Plaintiffs jury trial demand are, at this time, DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 3/12/2025. (Sellers, N.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:24-cv-00131-BO-KS
)
)
)

VICTOR KEFFER,
Plaintiff,

)
V.

METRO POLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company' s
[MetLife's] motion to dismiss [DE 10]. For the following reasons, the motion is granted in part
and denied in part.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Keffer was first employed by Kroger in 1974. As part of his employment, Keffer
was provided with a life insurance policy through MetLife. In 2013 , Keffer was diagnosed with
colon and liver cancer- the intensive treatments for these cancers prevented him from continuing
to perform the material duties of his job at Kroger. Keffer' s last day of employment at Kroger was
May 3, 2013. Afterwards, while receiving Social Security benefits for his total disability, Keffer
sought to continue the life insurance coverage provided to him by MetLife.
Keffer alleges that he provided the necessary information to support his claim of total
disability, and completed the necessary steps to port his insurance coverage [DE 1-1 at 12]. He
alleges that MetLife approved his request for continuation on February 25, 2014. Id. This insurance
was scheduled to reduce in coverage on May 22, 2022. Id.
As the date of reduction approached, Keffer again sought to continue or convert his life
insurance coverage. Keffer alleges that it was then, for the first time, that MetLife informed him

Case 5:24-cv-00131-BO-KS

Document 22

Filed 03/12/25

Page 1 of 5

that his coverage had actually expired on May 2, 2014-twelve months after the date of his total
disability [DE 1-1 at 13]. Keffer alleges that MetLife' s improper actions, whether intentional or
negligent, have violated the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the
North Carolina Debt Collection Act and led to financial , physical, and emotional distress [DE 1-1
at 16].
Defendant MetLife has moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). In particular, MetLife claims that Plaintiffs state law claims are completely
and expressly preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, or ERISA
[DE 11 at 3].
ANALYSIS
A motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted tests the complaint's
legal and factual sufficiency. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The focus is on the pleading
requirements under the Federal Rules, not the proof needed to succeed on a claim. "Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 8( a)(2) requires only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and
grounds upon which it rests. " Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,555 (2007). This standard
does not require detailed factual allegations, ACA Fin. Guar. Corp. v. City ofBuena Vista, Virginia,
917 F.3d 206, 212 (4th Cir. 2019), but it "demands more than an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Nadendla v. WakeMed, 24 F.4th 299, 305 (4th Cir. 2022).
"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, 'to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. "' Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). For a claim to be plausible, its factual content
must allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

2

Case 5:24-cv-00131-BO-KS

Document 22

Filed 03/12/25

Page 2 of 5

alleged. Although the court accepts the factual allegations as true, the court does not accept the
complaint's legal conclusions, so "simply reciting the cause of actions ' elements and supporting
them by conclusory statements does not meet the required standard." ACA Financial Guaranty

Corporation , 917 F.3d at 212.
The well-pleaded complaint rule is qualified in the context of ERISA by the doctrine of
complete preemption. The Supreme Court has expressly stated that "any state-law cause of action
that duplicates, supplements, or supplants the ERISA civil enforcement remedy conflicts with the
clear congressional intent to make the ERISA remedy exclusive and is therefore pre-empted."

Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 209 (2004). A state law claim falls within the
preemptive purview of the ERIS A enforcement mechanism "if an individual, at some point in time,
could have brought his claim under [the ERISA enforcement mechanism], and [] there is no other
independent legal duty that is implicated by a defendant' s actions." Id. at 210.
The Fourth Circuit has stated this test in terms of three requirements: "(l) the plaintiff must
have standing under [29 U.S.C. § 1132](a) to pursue its claim; (2) its claim must ' fall within the
scope of an ERISA provision that it can enforce via§ [1132](a)' ; and (3) the claim must not be
capable of resolution ' without an interpretation of the contract governed by federal law,' i.e. , an
ERISA-govemed employee benefit plan." Prince v. Sears Holdings Corp., 848 F.3d 173, 177 (4th
Cir. 2017). A state law can also be conflict-preempted under ERISA if it "has a connection with
or reference to such a[n ERISA-govemed] plan." Kearney v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North

Carolina, 233 F. Supp. 3d 496, 502 (M.D.N.C. 2017).
Here, the Plaintiff seeks to recover alleged damages from actions taken during the
administration and subsequent porting of an insurance policy and plan. Plaintiffs unfair and
deceptive trade practices claim emerges from MetLife ' s alleged mishandling of Plaintiffs requests

3

Case 5:24-cv-00131-BO-KS

Document 22

Filed 03/12/25

Page 3 of 5

to continue and port his insurance coverage. See Wilmington Shipping Co. v. New England Life
Ins. Co., 496 F.3d 326, 342 (4th Cir. 2007) (unfair and deceptive trade practices claim expressly
preempted by ERISA). Plaintiffs debt collection claim emerges from payment obligations and
terms present within the ERISA-governed plan. See Jenkins v. Moses H Cone Mem 'l Health Servs.
Corp., 2016 WL 9406697, at *7 (E.D.N.C. 2016) (debt collection claim expressly preempted by
ERISA). Both of these claims are exceedingly similar to ones that have previously been found to
be preempted by ERISA.
Arguing against preemption, Plaintiff claims that state consumer protection statutes, such
as North Carolina' s unfair and deceptive trade practices and debt collection statutes, have
"historically fallen into the purview of the states ' broad police powers, to which the courts have
afforded special solemnity." DE 19 at 4 (citing In re Pryor, 479 B.R. 694, 698 (Banla. E.D.N.C.
2012)). Further, Plaintiff argues that state law claims are not preempted by ERISA when "the
complaint charge[ s] [a plan administrator] with conduct that is entirely unrelated to its duties under
the ERISA plan." DE 19 at 8 (citing Darcangelo v. Verizon Commc 'ns., Inc. , 292 F.3d 181 , 190
(4th Cir. 2002)).
However, such is not the case here. " [T]he purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone
in every pre-emption case," Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S . 555, 565 (2009), and "ERISA includes
expansive pre-emption provisions ... which are intended to ensure that employee benefit plan
regulation would be ' exclusively a federal concern, "' Aetna Health Inc., 542 U.S. 200, 208. Both
of Plaintiffs state law claims are based on the rights and duties arising from the ERISA-governed
plan, and are "not [ ] capable of resolution ' without an interpretation of the contract governed by
federal law. '" Prince v. Sears Holdings Corp. , 848 F.3d 173, 177 (4th Cir. 2017). This is evidenced

4

Case 5:24-cv-00131-BO-KS

Document 22

Filed 03/12/25

Page 4 of 5

in Plaintiffs own complaint by the extensive block quoting and reference to the terms of the benefit
plan.
It is impossible to evaluate Plaintiffs state law claims without reference to an ERISAgovemed policy or plan, and Plaintiffs claims allege no conduct on behalf of Defendant unrelated
to plan administration. Plaintiffs state law claims are therefore completely preempted by ERISA ' s
civil enforcement mechanism. Accordingly, Defendant MetLife is entitled to dismissal of
Plaintiffs state law claims.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant MetLife' s motion to dismiss [DE 1O] is GRANTED
IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Plaintiffs state law claims are DISMISSED. The Plaintiff
may, according to law, re-plead his complaint under ERISA' s civil enforcement mechanism. The
Defendant' s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs demand for punitive damages and to strike Plaintiffs
jury trial demand are, at this time, DENIED AS MOOT.

SO ORDERED, this / ~day of March 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRIC

~

5

Case 5:24-cv-00131-BO-KS

Document 22

Filed 03/12/25

Page 5 of 5