From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peeler v. Hartford Life Accident Insurance Company

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina
Jun 27, 2006
1:06CV00321 (M.D.N.C. Jun. 27, 2006)

Opinion

1:06CV00321.

June 27, 2006


ORDER


Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss and strike that part of plaintiff's complaint in paragraph 13(c) wherein plaintiff seeks to recover, in addition, "Interest on funds plaintiff borrowed to replace the lost income necessary to maintain plaintiff's household." This is an ERISA action filed pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. Defendant states that extra-contractual damages are not available for such a lawsuit citing, among other cases,Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 113 S.Ct. 2063, 124 L.Ed.2d 161 (1993).

Plaintiff has not responded to the motion in writing, but rather has orally advised the Court that plaintiff does not oppose this motion. The Court finds good cause for the motion and, in addition, plaintiff does not oppose it. Therefore, defendant's motion shall be granted to the following extent,

IT IS ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss and strike (docket no. 6) is granted to the extent that paragraph 13(c) of the complaint is hereby denied and dismissed and plaintiff shall not recover any damages thereon.


Summaries of

Peeler v. Hartford Life Accident Insurance Company

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina
Jun 27, 2006
1:06CV00321 (M.D.N.C. Jun. 27, 2006)
Case details for

Peeler v. Hartford Life Accident Insurance Company

Case Details

Full title:MARY ANNE PEELER, Plaintiff, v. HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE…

Court:United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina

Date published: Jun 27, 2006

Citations

1:06CV00321 (M.D.N.C. Jun. 27, 2006)