Yvonne Moran v. Aetna Life Insurance Company

dissenting:

This case presents a novel issue of law: does ERISA preempt a federal law claim of estoppel where an insurance company erroneously holds itself out as the plan administrator? This circuit has held that

Dockray v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 801 F.2d 1149, 1155 (9th Cir.1986) (where employer informs striking worker that he is being dropped from payroll because no work was available, rather than because he was refraining from work, employer is estopped from denying plaintiff pension benefits).

ERISA preempts state law contract theories based on estoppel, Ellenburg v. Brockway, Inc., 763 F.2d 1091, 1095 (9th Cir.1985), but not federal claims based on es-toppel. Id. at 1096 . We stated in Menhorn v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 738 F.2d 1496 (9th Cir.1984), that courts retain broad authority to develop interstitial ERISA common law:

Id. at 1499-1500 (holding that ERISA does not have retroactive application); see also Misic v. Building Service Employees Health & Welfare Trust, 789 F.2d 1374 (9th Cir.1986) (although 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (d) prohibits assignment of pension benefits, ERISA is silent regarding assignment of health and welfare benefits; assignment allowed as matter of…

872 F.2d 296 57 USLW 2619 , 10 Employee Benefits Ca 2329 Yvonne MORAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. No. 87-6733. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 4, 1988. Decided April 4, 1989. Richard S. MacNaughton, Beverly Hills, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. Michael P. McNamara, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before FLETCHER, ALARCON and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges. ALARCON, Circuit Judge: 1 The Plaintiff/Appellant Yvonne Moran, (Moran) appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant/Appellee Aetna Life Insurance Company (Aetna) and the denial of Moran's motion for summary judgment. Moran sued Aetna as a "Plan Administrator" under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 et seq. (1982 & Supp. IV 1986) for failure to provide Plan Documents at Moran's request. The district court concluded that since Aetna was not the plan administrator as defined by 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1002 (16)(A) (1982), it is not liable for damages…

The Plaintiff/Appellant Yvonne Moran, (Moran) appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant/Appellee Aetna Life Insurance Company (Aetna) and the denial of Moran’s motion for summary judgment. Moran sued Aetna as a “Plan Administrator” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (1982 & Supp. IV 1986) for failure to provide Plan Documents at Moran’s request. The district court concluded that since Aetna was not the plan administrator as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (16)(A) (1982), it is not liable for damages under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (c) (Supp. IV 1986).

Moran contends that Aetna is liable under section 1132(c) because its claims supervisor advised her attorney that Aetna was the plan administrator. Because Aet-na was not the plan administrator under the applicable statutory language, we disagree and affirm.

I

Moran was an employee of the law firm of Meserve, Mumper & Hughes (employer) and was insured under an Aetna policy. Aetna provided the employer with a booklet describing the plan for distribution to the employees. The booklet does not identify a plan administrator. Aetna also provided Moran…