Bast

Bast v. Prudential Inurance Co. of America

Good Law
150 F.3d 1003·98 Daily Journal DAR 5767·1998 WL 279217·22 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1268·1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 11358
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 2, 1998No. 97-35429California4,174 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Thompson, J.

Roger Timothy Bast, individually and as the personal representative of the estate of his late wife, Rhonda Rae Fleming Bast, and their minor son, Douglas Glenn Bast (“the Basts”) appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Prudential Insurance Company (“Prudential”). The Basts argue that Prudential acted in bad faith and breached its fiduciary duty to Rhonda Bast by delaying authorization for a potentially life-saving medical procedure. The district court held that all of the Basts’ state law claims were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and that ERISA provides no remedy for Prudential’s alleged bad faith denial of benefits.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. Although this case presents a tragic set of facts, the district court properly concluded that under existing law the Basts are left without a remedy.

I

BACKGROUND

Rhonda Bast was an employee of Cole National Corporation (“Cole”). Cole provided major medical benefits for its employees under the “Cole National Corporation Group Benefit Plan” (the “Plan”). Prudential acted as the administrator of this health insurance plan. Additionally,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.