Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-3106
October 7, 2003
ORDER
AND NOW, this 7th day of October, 2003, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of August 18, 2003, filed September 15, 2003, and Defendant's Response In Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion For Reconsideration, filed September 25, 2003, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion is DENIED.
We have carefully reviewed both our Memorandum dated August 14, 2003 and Judge Newcomer's insightful opinion in Rosenbaum v. Unum Life Insurance Co., No. 01-56758 (E.D.Pa. Sept. 8, 2003). We find that the rationales espoused by our esteemed colleague to support his holding that 42 Pa.C.S. § 8371 survives express preemption by ERISA under that statute's saving clause ultimately unpersuasive. For the reasons explained in our prior Memorandum, we continue to believe that Pennsylvania's statutory punitive damages remedy for an insurer's bad-faith denial of an insurance claim does not " substantially affect the risk-pooling arrangement" between an insurer and its insureds in the manner contemplated by the Supreme Court in Kentucky Ass'n of Health Plans. Inc. v. Miller, 123 S.Ct. 1471 (2003). Even if we held otherwise, we respectfully disagree with the thoughtful analysis Judge Newcomer used to substantiate his second conclusion that ERISA fails to impliedly preempt § 8371 for the simple reason that we are bound by Supreme Court jurisprudence, even if flawed. The Supreme Court has never wavered in its assertion that Congress did not intend to authorize remedies other than those provided under § 502(a) of ERISA. Years of Supreme Court case law has repeatedly emphasized the "overpowering" federal policy in ERISA's civil enforcement provisions.See, e.g., Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 95 L.Ed.2d 39, 107 S.Ct. 1549 (1987); Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 95 L.Ed.2d 55, 107 S.Ct. 1542 (1987);Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 87 L.Ed.2d 96, 105 S.Ct. 3085 (1985). This caselaw culminated in a clear reaffirmation by both the majority and dissent in Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, 536 U.S. 355, 153 L.Ed.2d 375, 122 S.Ct. 2151 (2002), that Congress intended the remedies under § 502(a) to be exclusive of any state law remedies, regardless of whether the state law at issue "regulates insurance" and is thus "saved" from express preemption under ERISA's saving clause.