Opinion
No: 02 C 1855
June 27, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Barry Hackner ("Hackner"), filed suit against Defendants, Long Term Disability Plan for Employees of the Havi Group LP ("Plan") and Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company ("Hartford"), alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Presently before the Court is Hartford's Motion to Dismiss.
In reviewing a motion to dismiss, the court reviews all facts alleged in the complaint and any inferences reasonably drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Marshall-Mosby v. Corporate Receivables, Inc., 205 F.3d 323, 326 (7th Cir. 2000). Dismissal is warranted only if the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of its claims that would entitle it to relief. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).
A reading of the Complaint supports the following summary of the alleged conduct of the parties.
Hackner was an employee of the Havi Group LP ("Havi"). Hartford issued and underwrote a group long-term disability insurance plan provided to Havi's employees. In December 1996, Hackner ceased working at Havi due to acute bipolar disorder. Subsequent to ceasing his employment, Hackner made a claim for benefits under the Plan. Hartford approved Hackner's claim and began paying benefits on March 3, 1997. Hartford continued to pay benefits until March 2, 1999.
In addition to Hartford's benefits, Hackner was approved to receive social security disability benefits. The Social Security Administration determined that Hackner was "disabled" since September 1996. Hackner continues to receive social security benefits.
As a result of Hackner's receipt of social security benefits, Hartford demanded that Hackner reimburse the social security benefit payments that duplicated payments made by Hartford. Hartford also demanded reimbursement of dependent benefits paid by social security on Hackner's social security wage earners account. Hackner remitted all payments demanded by Hartford.
Following the termination of his benefits by Hartford, Hackner appealed the denial of his continued receipt of benefits from Hartford. Hartford denied reinstating Hackner's benefits. Hackner alleges that Hartford had no basis for demanding and receiving his dependent payments from social security and has wrongfully refused to reinstate his benefits.
Hartford argues that it should be dismissed because it is not a proper party under ERISA. Ordinarily, in a suit to recover benefits of a Plan brought pursuant to ERISA, the plaintiff may only bring suit against the Plan. See Riordan v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 128 F.3d 549, 551 (7th Cir. 1997); Jass v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., 88 F.3d 1482, 1490 (7th Cir. 1996). However, suits for benefits may also be brought against the plan administrator. See Mein v. Carus Corp., 241 F.3d 581, 583 (7th Cir. 2001) (employer was proper defendant in ERISA action because employer was also the plan administrator, and the employer and the plan were otherwise closely intertwined); Layes v. Mead Corp., 132 F.3d 1246, 1249 (8th Cir. 1998); Garren v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 114 F.3d 186, 187 (11th Cir. 1997); Taft v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y, 9 F.3d 1469, 1471 (9th Cir. 1993). The "administrator" is "the person specifically so designated by the terms of the instrument under which the plan is operated". 29 U.S.C. § 1002(16)(A)(i).
In the instant case, Hackner's Complaint does not allege that Hartford is the Plan administrator. Furthermore, the copy of the Plan attached to the Complaint identifies the Plan administrator as Havi. Therefore, Hartford is not a proper defendant in Hackner's ERISA claim brought pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1) and 1132(f).
For the foregoing reasons, Hartford's Motion to Dismiss is