Miles v. Farmers Insurance Group

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 13 Motion for Summary Judgment. Hearing re imposition of statutory penalty set for 2/10/2014 10:00 AM in Room 230. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 2/7/14 (alt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
NANCY J. MILES,
Plaintiff,
v.
FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP OF
COMPANIES and FARMERS GROUP,
INC. EMPLOYEES' GROUP LIFE
INSURANCE PLAN,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case No. 2:12-cv-01009 DN
District Judge David Nuffer

Defendants.

Table of Contents

Case Overview ................................................................................................................................ 2
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Undisputed Facts ............................................................................................................................. 3
Summary Judgment Standard ......................................................................................................... 3
Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 4
ORDER ........................................................................................................................................... 5

Case Overview
This case involves a dispute between the parties as to whether Defendant Farmers Group
Inc. Employees' Group Life Insurance Plan ("the Plan") had an obligation to respond to requests
for documents under which the Plan was established or operated and, if the Plan did have an
obligation to respond and failed to do so, whether or not an award of statutory penalties pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. §1024(b)(4) is appropriate.
Both the Plan and Plaintiff, Nancy Miles ("Miles"), submitted motions for summary
judgment. 1 The parties' motions have been fully briefed. For the reasons set forth herein,
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Defendants' motion for summary
judgment is DENIED. A hearing is scheduled for February 10, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. to determine
whether to impose a statutory penalty against the Plan for violating 29 U.S.C. §1024(b)(4).
Background
The Plan is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA"). ERISA provides for an award of statutory penalties when a plan fails to provide
copies of documents under which the plan is established or operated within thirty days after a
participant or beneficiary requests those documents. 2 At the court's discretion, penalties may be
awarded in an amount of up to $110 per day from thirty days after an ERISA plan administrator
receives a written request for plan materials as set forth in §1024(b)(4) from a plan participant,
beneficiary, or their authorized representative, until the date the requested materials are
produced. 3

1

Docket nos. 13 and 15, filed October 15, 2013 and October 25, 2013, respectively.

2

29 U.S.C. §1024(b)(4).

3

29 U.S.C. §1132(c).

2

The primary issue in this case is whether Miles had a colorable claim as a Plan
beneficiary or potential beneficiary. If so, the Plan should have responded to Miles' request and
produced Plan documents and information. If not, the Plan was not statutorily required to
respond to Miles and cannot be subject to any penalties or an award of attorney fees and costs
against it.
Undisputed Facts
The Plan disputed a majority of the factual statements from Miles' motion for summary
judgment, at least in part. 4 However, the following material facts are undisputed:
1.

Miles' late husband was at one time employed by an entity associated with the

2.

After the death of Miles' husband, Miles contacted the Plan to request certain

Plan. 5

documents and information. 6
3.

The Plan did not provide the requested documents within 30 days of the request.
Summary Judgment Standard

"The court shall 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." 7 When
analyzing a motion for summary judgment, the court must "view the evidence and draw all
reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary
judgment." 8 However, "the nonmoving party must present more than a scintilla of evidence in

4

See the Plan's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, docket no. 20, filed November 25, 2013.

5

Id. at 5.

6

Id. at 6.

7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

8

Mathews v. Denver Newspaper Agency LLP, 649 F.3d 1199, 1204 (10th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations omitted).

3

favor of his position." 9 A dispute is genuine only "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury
could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." 10
Discussion
An ERISA plan administrator is required to provide certain documents to a plan
participant or beneficiary within 30 days of a request. 11 A plan participant or beneficiary
includes any person who has a colorable claim to benefits under the plan. 12 A "colorable claim"
is established when a claimant presents an "arguable and nonfrivolous claim for benefits." 13 As
long as a plaintiff's claim is not "patently without merit," standing to assert an ERISA claim
exists. If the administrator does not provide the requested and statutorily identified documents
within 30 days of the request, then the court may, in its discretion, award penalties against the
plan pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §1132(c).
In this case, Miles has standing to bring this action under ERISA because she has a
colorable claim to benefits under the Plan. Her husband was once employed by an entity
associated with the Plan. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §1024(b)(4), she had standing to request
information related to the Plan. Because Miles is a beneficiary or potential beneficiary under the
Plan, Farmers was obligated to provide (upon request) the information set forth in §1024(b)(4).
The Plan violated that section by failing to provide the requested information within 30 days of
the request, so penalties may be imposed against the Plan under 29 U.S.C. §1132(c). A hearing is
scheduled for February 10, 2014 to determine the penalty, if any, to be assessed against the Plan.

9

Ford v. Pryor, 552 F.3d 1174, 1178 (10th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).

10

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Kerber v. Qwest Group Life Ins. Plan, 647 F.3d 950,
959 (10th Cir. 2011).
11

See 29 U.S.C. §1024(b)(4).

12

See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 117-118 (1989).

13

Hubbert v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, No. 96-1093, 105 F.3d 669, 1997 WL 8854 at *3 (10th Cir. 1997)
(unpublished).

4

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment 14 is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties will appear on February 10, 2014 at 10:00
a.m., Room 230, to discuss the factors relevant to whether a statutory penalty should be imposed
and, if so, what the appropriate amount of the penalty should be.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties will be prepared to also discuss, and correct
if necessary, the timeline of events provided by the court in connection with its review of the
parties' briefing, including Mr. King's request for Plan documents, the Defendants' response to
Mr. King's request, and whether all documents required by 29 U.S.C. §1024(b)(4) to be produced
have been provided to Miles.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that following the hearing on the issue of the statutory
penalty award, the parties will be instructed to provide information and arguments in connection
with the appropriate amount for an award of attorney fees and costs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment 15 is
DENIED.
Signed February 7, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
David Nuffer
United States District Judge

14

Docket no. 15, filed October 25, 2013.

15

Docket no. 13, filed October 15, 2013.

5