Echague

Echague v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Good Law
43 F. Supp. 3d 994·2014 WL 2089331·58 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1413·2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68642
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 19, 2014Case No. 12-cv-00640-WHOCalifornia14,124 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Orrick, J.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 92, 103, 104, 107

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

After being diagnosed with cancer and going on medical leave, Carol Echague sent defendant TriNet Group, Inc. a specific inquiry about her insurance coverage, stating that she did not want any of it to lapse. TriNet responded by referring her to confusing form letters it had already provided that did not specifically address the policies that were in danger of lapsing. Ms. Echague died four months later, and her husband, ' the plaintiff here, then learned that her insurance policies had lapsed. Among several issues, I have to determine whether TriNet breached its fiduciary duty to the Echagues and whether it or any other defendant is liable as a result. I find that TriNet’s insufficient response violated its fiduciary duties under ERISA and GRANT plaintiffs motion on that ground. In all other respects, I GRANT defendants’ motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Echague sues defendants…

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.