Lyn Everhart v. Allmerica Financial Life Insurance Company, Dba State Mutual Life Assurance Company of America

275 F.3d 751 (9th Cir. 2001) LYN EVERHART, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ALLMERICA FINANCIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, DBA STATE MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. No. 99-17094 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Argued and Submitted March 14, 2001 Filed Dec. 27, 2001 Charles J. Wisch, San Francisco, California, for the plaintiff-appellant. Paul E.B. Glad, Sonia Renee Martin, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, San Francisco, California, for the defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Vaughn R. Walker, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. CV-99-00733-VRW Before: Stephen Reinhardt, Pamela Ann Rymer and Raymond C. Fisher, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Fisher; Dissent by Judge Reinhardt FISHER, Circuit Judge: 1 Lyn Everhart appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of Allmerica Financial Life Insurance Co. ("Allmerica"). She argues that the district court was incorrect in concluding that ERISA barred her suit against Allmerica, its employee benefit plan's insurer. Because Everhart may not bring suit to recover benefits against Allmerica in its capacity as a third-party…

Opinion by Judge FISHER; Dissent by Judge REINHARDT.

Lyn Everhart appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Allmerica Financial Life Insurance Co. (“Allmerica”). She argues that the district court was incorrect in concluding that ERISA barred her suit against Allmerica, its employee benefit plan’s insurer. Because Everhart may not bring suit to recover benefits against Allmerica in its capacity as a third-party insurer under the applicable ERISA provisions, we affirm.

I.

Appellant was married to Charles Ever-hart, an employee of Credence Systems Corp. (“Credence”). Credence established an employee benefit plan (“the plan”) subject to the terms of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., for which it was the plan administrator. In accordance with the terms of the plan, Credence purchased a group life insurance policy (“the policy”) from Allmerica. If a plan participant died, the terms of the policy dictated that his beneficiaries were to receive a death benefit of twice his annual earnings.

*753 Charles Everhart was a plan participant. In his enrollment form, he listed his annual salary as $84,800. Although this sum…

dissenting:

For the reasons explained below, I respectfully dissent. The majority holds that “Everhart may not bring suit to recover benefits against Allmerica in its capacity as a third-party insurer under the applicable ERISA provisions” because “ § 1132(a)(1)(B) does not permit suits against a third-party insurer to recover benefits when the insurer is not functioning as a plan administrator.” Maj. Op. at 752. The majority, however, can point to no provision of ERISA either limiting the parties that may be sued under the statute to ERISA plans and administrators, or prohibiting suits against third-party insurers. Therefore, applying the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Hams Trust and Savings Bank v. Salomon Smith Barney, there is “no limit on the universe of proper defendants” 530 U.S. 238, 246 , 120 S.Ct. 2180 , 147 L.Ed.2d 187 (2000) where the statute does not establish one. I simply cannot agree with the majority’s determination to strip from Everhart and other ERISA plan beneficiaries and participants their rights under the statute to sue parties that may be hable for the payment of the benefits owed them.

ERISA permits a participant or beneficiary to bring suit to…