Irving v. Union Security Insurance Company

Filing 27

ORDER granting dft's 19 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
LAURA NICOLE IRVING,
No. C12-0584RSL

11
12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
UNION SECURITY INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

This matter comes before the Court on Union Security Insurance
Company’s “Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding ERISA Preemption.” Dkt. # 19.
The issue before the Court is whether the group long-term disability policy negotiated and
obtained by the Everett Policy Officers Association (“EPOA”) is a “governmental plan”
under 29 U.S.C. § 1002(32). If it is, the plan is exempt from certain provisions of
ERISA, and plaintiff may pursue her state law claims. If it is not a “governmental plan,”
ERISA applies and preempts plaintiff’s state law claims.
A “governmental plan” is defined as “a plan established or maintained for
its employees by” a governmental entity. Plaintiff does not dispute that the EPOA is not
a governmental entity, that it negotiated and applied for the group long-term disability
policy, that individual officers pay the premiums, and that the EPOA handles the

28
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1

1

paperwork related to enrollment and payment of the premiums. Nevertheless, she argues

2

that the plan was established by the City of Everett, rather than the EPOA, because the

3

collective bargaining agreement that was in effect at the time plaintiff became disabled

4

provided that the City would “sponsor and administer a disability insurance program

5

through Standard Insurance Company” for the benefit of its officers and their dependents.

6

Opposition (Dkt. # 23) at 4.1
There is evidence that, as of June 1, 1995, a long-term disability insurance

7
8

policy issued by Standard Insurance Company may have been available to officers in

9

plaintiff’s position. Plaintiff has not, however, provided any evidence from which one

10

could infer that she, in fact, qualified for coverage under that policy: she makes no

11

attempt to show that the EPOA participated in the Washington State Council of LEOFF II

12

Personnel Insurance Trust or that it elected to provide insurance under the Standard

13

Insurance Company policy. See Decl. of Elizabeth Lepley (Dkt. # 24), Ex. 6 at 1. Even

14

if plaintiff were insured under that policy, there is no evidence to support her supposition

15

that the City of Everett “established or maintained” the policy “[i]n accordance with the

16

collective bargaining agreement.” 29 U.S.C. § 1002(32); Opposition (Dkt. # 23) at 5.

17

The mere fact that the City promised to sponsor and administer a disability policy in a

18

collective bargaining agreement raises only a very weak inference that it actually did so,

19

especially where the policy is silent as to the City’s involvement.
More importantly, plaintiff has not sued for benefits owed under the

20
21

Standard Insurance Company policy. The policy under which benefits are sought was

22

issued by Fortis Insurance Company (the predecessor of defendant Union Security

23

Insurance Company) on April 1, 1994. The only relevant evidence shows that the EPOA

24

negotiated, established, and maintains the Fortis/Union Security policy. Plaintiff has not

25

provided any evidence to dispute those facts. Even if the Court assumes that the City

26

promised to “sponsor and administer” a disability policy through a different insurer as set

27
28

1

For purposes of this motion, the Court has considered all of the evidence submitted.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2

1

forth in the collective bargaining agreement, such a promise tells us nothing about

2

whether the City established the Fortis/Union Security policy at issue here. Plaintiff has

3

therefore failed to raise a material issue that would preclude summary judgment.

4

For all of the foregoing reasons, Union Security’s motion for partial

5
6

summary judgment is GRANTED. This action is governed by ERISA, which preempts

7

plaintiff’s state law causes of action. Plaintiff’s breach of contract, Consumer Protection

8

Act, Insurance Fair Conduct Act, bad faith, and emotional distress claims are hereby

9

DISMISSED.

10
11

Dated this 27th day of August, 2013.

A
Robert S. Lasnik

12
13

United States District Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 3