Erisa and Disability Benefits Law Blog

There is sometimes confusion about the proper defendants to sue in an ERISA disability case.  Moreover, the law in the federal circuit courts is not entirely consistent on this point.  A federal district in Ohio, which is part of the Sixth Circuit, recently addressed this issue in Dirkes v. Continental Casualty Co., 2006 WL 2381444 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 16, 2006).

In Dirkes, the plaintiff, an anesthesiologist, initially filed suit against Continental Casualty Co., Charles Stedman & Co., Inc., and The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.  The plaintiff had worked at Anesthesia Associates of Cincinnati, Inc., before leaving his job due to a liver condition.  He sued Continental Casualty as the alleged underwriter of the plan; Charles Stedman & Co. as the administrator of the plan; and Hartford Financial Services as a fiduciary under ERISA.  He later amended his complaint to add the plan itself as a defendant.

Continental Casualty, Charles Stedman & Co., and Hartford Financial moved to dismiss the claims against them, arguing that they were not proper parties under ERISA.  The federal magistrate judge recommended granting the motion but allowing the plaintiff additional time to amend his complaint to add another entity, Hartford Life Group Insurance Company, as a defendant.

Upon review of the magistrate judge’s findings, the district court concluded that the plaintiff was apparently not objecting to the dismissal of Charles Stedman & Co. and Hartford Financial, but instead was objecting to the dismissal of Continental Casualty.  He argued, among other things, that the magistrate judge erred by “suggesting that an ERISA administrator/fiduciary (Continental Casualty Co.) has the unilateral authority to extract itself from fiduciary responsibilities and assign its fiduciary role to another entity without an explicit provision in the plan.”  The parties also disputed which plan document applied to the claim.

The court ruled that claims for ERISA benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 “shall be made against the plan itself or the administrator or fiduciary.” (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1132(d)).  After identifying the applicable plan document, the court reasoned that the plan had been administered by CNA Group Life Assurance Company.  However, an endorsement to the plan stated that CNA changed its name to Hartford Life Group Insurance Company.  The court held that this name change was “not an unlawful assignment of fiduciary duties by CNA as Plaintiff suggests but, instead, is comparable to a corporate restructure.” 

As a result, the district court held that the proper defendants were the plan itself and Hartford Life Group Insurance Company.  The court dismissed the claims against the other defendants and granted 30 days for the plaintiff to amend his complaint to add Hartford Life as a defendant.