North Carolina Life Acc. Health Ins. v. Alcatel

11 Citing cases

  1. Sour Grapes, LLC v. Vinum U.S. Inc.

    1:22-cv-203-MOC-WCM (W.D.N.C. Feb. 12, 2024)

    For the foregoing reasons, the Court will abstain from resolving Vinum's summary judgment motion under the Colorado River doctrine. See North Carolina Life & Accident & Health Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Alcatel, 876 F.Supp. 748, 755 (E.D. N.C. 1995) (stating that “[t]he proceedings before the NCDOI and this court involve substantially the same parties and issues”).

  2. Remy v. Lubbock Nat'l Bank

    403 F. Supp. 3d 496 (E.D.N.C. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    In this district, whether ERISA provides for a right to contribution among fiduciaries has been addressed briefly, without analysis or resolution. See N. Carolina Life & Acc. & Health Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Alcatel, 876 F. Supp. 748, 756 (E.D.N.C.), aff'd,72 F.3d 127 (4th Cir. 1995) (citing Brock v. Gillikin, 677 F.Supp. 398, 402–03 (E.D.N.C.1987) ) ("[T]his court interprets ERISA as creating neither an express nor an implied right to indemnification between a plan fiduciary and a non-fiduciary and has specifically stated its ‘doubts that any claim for indemnification or contribution should be read into ERISA.’ "). Alcatel did not involve a contribution claim, but a direct claim by a nonfiduciary against a fiduciary; thus the court held plaintiff, "a potential subrogee and not a plan participant, beneficiary or fiduciary," lacked standing.

  3. N. Carolina Life v. Alcatel Network Sys

    72 F.3d 127 (4th Cir. 1995)   Cited 5 times

    December 18, 1995. E.D.N.C., 876 F.Supp. 748. DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS

  4. Trs. of Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs Local 132 Health & Welfare Fund v. Brown's Excavating, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 5:14CV118 (N.D.W. Va. May. 15, 2015)   Cited 1 times
    Holding that employers failed to state a claim for return of overpayments because they "have not alleged in their complaint that they have fulfilled the initial requirements of [ERISA] § 403 as set out in United States Foodservice"

    This Court also notes that it is not alone in finding claims for indemnification and contribution by a non-fiduciary against a fiduciary preempted. North Carolina Life and Acc. and Health Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Alcatel, et al., 876 F. Supp. 748, (E.D. N.C. 1995) (finding that ERISA created "neither an express nor an implied right to indemnification between a plan fiduciary and a non-fiduciary and . . . doubts that any claim for indemnification or contribution should be read into ERISA"); see also Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. of America v. IADA Services, Inc., 497 F.3d 862, 864-868 (8th Cir. 2007) (finding that state common-law claims of indemnification and contribution were preempted as ERISA has a strong presumption against creating additional remedies); Kim v. Fujikawa, 871 F.2d 1427, 1432-33 (9th Cir. 1989) (finding that contribution was not an accessible remedy and was preempted as a claim for a breaching fiduciary); NARDA, Inc. v. Rhode Island Hosp. Trust Nat. Bank, 744 F. Supp. 685, 697 (D. Md. 1990) ("It thus appears that the failure to include the rights of contribution and indemnity in ERISA was intended by Congress and the omission of those rights is not an unaddressed detail or gap to be filled by a federal common law."); Fedex Corp

  5. Poston v. John Bell Co. Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:07-cv-00757 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 27, 2008)   Cited 4 times
    Noting that location of both courts in West Virginia demonstrated the federal forum was not less convenient

    Likewise, adding "additional claims dependent upon the determination of [the] action pending before state court, will not destroy parallelism." Flanders Filters, Inc., 93 F. Supp. 2d at 672 (citing N.C. Life Accident Health Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Alcatel, 876 F. Supp. 749, 755 (E.D.N.C. 1995)). Despite the additional claims set forth in this action, the remedies requested in both proceedings are substantially similar: Plaintiffs want Defendants to pay for the damages they incurred as a result of BellCo and its agents' performance (or lack thereof) on the contract and tortious conduct.

  6. Toledo Blade Newspaper v. Investment Per. Services

    448 F. Supp. 2d 871 (N.D. Ohio 2006)   Cited 6 times
    Considering other N.D. Ohio courts' opinions as persuasive rather than mandatory

    es. Kim v. Fujikawa, 871 F.2d 1427 (9th Cir. 1989); Williams v. Provident, 279 F. Supp.2d 894 (N.D. Ohio 2003) (Carr, C.J.), Roberts v. Taussig, 39 F. Supp.2d 1010 (N.D. Ohio 1999) (Economus, J.), and Daniels v. National Employee Ben. Services, 877 F. Supp. 1067 (N.D. Ohio 1995) (Aldrich, J.); Center Physicians Inc. v. Painewebber Group Inc., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22657, 1996 WL 622470, (E.D. Mo. 1996); Int'l Bhd. of Painters Allied Trades Union Pension Plan v. Duval, 1994 WL 903314 (D.D.C. 1994); Aks v. Southgate Trust Co., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20442, 1992 WL 401708 (D. Kan. 1992); Schloegel v. Boswell, 766 F. Supp. 563 (S.D. Miss. 1991); Physicians Healthchoice v. Trs. of the Auto. Employee Benefit Trust, 764 F. Supp. 1360 (D. Minn. 1991); Hollingshead v. Burford Equipment Co., 747 F. Supp. 1421 (M.D. Ala. 1990); NARDA, Inc. v.Rhode Island Hosp. Trust National Bank, 744 F. Supp. 685 (D. Md. 1990); Franklin v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10842 (D.S.C. 1988); and North Carolina Life Accident Health Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Alcatel, 876 F. Supp. 748 (N.C. 1995). In addition to this split of authority, and as both parties acknowledge, there is no prevailing law on this issue from the Sixth Circuit.

  7. In re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative & "ERISA" Litigation

    228 F.R.D. 541 (S.D. Tex. 2005)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that ERISA does not provide for indemnity or contribution rights

    Therefore, because ERISA's remedial provisions are fully integrated and comprehensive, courts should not judicially create a contribution remedy." ); Daniels v. Nat'l Employee Benefit Services, Inc., 877 F.Supp. 1067, 1074 (N.D.Ohio 1995); North Carolina Life and Acc. and Health Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Alcatel, 876 F.Supp. 748, 756 (E.D.N.C.1995), aff'd, 72 F.3d 127 (4th Cir.1995); Int'l Broth. of Painters and Allied Trades Union and Industry Pension Fund v. Duval, No. Civ. A. 92-1099(JHG), 1994 WL 903314 (D.D.C. Apr. 14, 1994); NARDA, Inc. v. Rhode Island Hosp. Trust Nat'l Bank, 744 F.Supp. 685, 695-99 (D.Md.1990); Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Yampol, 706 F.Supp. 596, 598 (N.D.Ill.1989)(" a fiduciary ... does not appear to be a member of a class for whose especial benefit ERISA was enacted" ). Two district courts in the Fifth Circuit have followed the Ninth Circuit rule.

  8. Williams v. Provident Investment Counsel

    279 F. Supp. 2d 894 (N.D. Ohio 2003)   Cited 37 times
    Granting trustee's motion to strike defenses of estoppel, waiver, and ratification

    Other district courts have, however, like the two Judges from this District, held that there is no right of contribution among ERISA fiduciaries. Center Physicians Inc. v. Painewebber Group Inc., 1996 WL 622470 (E.D.Mo. 1996); Int'l Bhd. of Painters Allied Trades Union Pension Fund v. Duval, 1994 WL 903314 (D.D.C. 1994); Aks v. Southgate Trust Co., 1992 WL 401708 (D.Kan. 1992); Schloegel v. Boswell, 766 F.Supp. 563, 569 (S.D.Miss. 1991); Physicians HealthChoice v. Trs. of Auto. Employee Benefit Trust, 764 F.Supp. 1360, 1364 (D.Minn. 1991); Hollingshead v. Burford Equipment Co., 747 F.Supp. 1421, 1445 (M.D.Ala. 1990); NARDA, Inc. v. Rhode Island Hosp. Trust National Bank, 744 F.Supp. 685, 697-98 (D.Md. 1990); Franklin v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10842 (D.S.C. 1988); see also North Carolina Life Acc. Health Ins. Guaranty Assn. v. Alcatel, 876 F.Supp. 748, 756 (E.D.N.C. 1995) (expressing "'doubts that any claim for contribution should be read into ERISA.'") (citing Brock v. Gillikin, 677 F.Supp. 398, 403 (1987)). As the foregoing list of citations makes clear, there is no prevailing or controlling view on the issue of contribution among ERISA fiduciaries.

  9. Flanders Filters, Inc. v. Intel Corp.

    93 F. Supp. 2d 669 (E.D.N.C. 2000)   Cited 3 times

    Flanders' claim against Conap will arise only if it is determined that Flanders is liable to Intel. As explained in North Carolina Life and Accident and Health Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 876 F. Supp. 748, 755 (E.D.N.C. 1995), additional claims dependent upon the determination of actions pending before state courts, will not destroy parallelism. Because the same parties are litigating substantially the same issues in this forum and in Arizona, the suits are parallel.

  10. Buckley v. Archdiocese of Rockville Centre

    992 F. Supp. 586 (E.D.N.Y. 1998)   Cited 9 times

    See State of New York v. Philip Morris, Inc., 1998 WL 2574 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan.5, 1998) (Section 1367(c) should be invoked "where a state claim constitutes the real body of the case, to which the federal claim is only an appendage"; citing Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 789 (3d Cir. 1995)). In analogous situations, district courts have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to section 1367. See, e.g., North Carolina Life Accident Health Ins. v. Alcatel, 876 F. Supp. 748, 755 (E.D.N.C.) (declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims where ripening of federal ERISA claim was "totally dependent" upon disposition of state law claims), aff'd., 72 F.3d 127 (4th Cir. 1995); Bodenner v. Graves, 828 F. Supp. 516, 518 (W.D.Mich. 1993) (where case presented a single valid federal claim, court would not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over twenty-eight state law claims).