Keith McIver v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

facts to establish that “(1) the defendant was a fiduciary; and (2) the defendant

breached a fiduciary duty; and (3) the plaintiff suffered damages.” Bafford, 994

F.3d at 1026 (first citing 29 U.S.C. § 1109(a); and then citing Mathews v. Chevron

Corp., 362 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2004)).

To the extent that McIver is challenging Boeing’s and EBPC’s conduct of

solely calculating and collecting life insurance premiums, we affirm the district

court’s dismissal of McIver’s breach of fiduciary duty claim because the district

court correctly concluded that these actions were ministerial. See Bafford, 994

F.3d at 1028.

To the extent McIver also alleges that EBPC, as a Plan3 fiduciary, and

Boeing, as a functional fiduciary, 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A), were performing

fiduciary functions when they continued to charge, deduct, and collect premiums

after receiving his Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) notice stating

that he was divorced, we conclude that McIver plausibly alleged that EBPC and

Boeing were acting as fiduciaries when they continued to collect premiums in

2 According to the Policy, coverage for a dependent, including a “lawful spouse,” will terminate on…