Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Price v. Life Insurance Company of North America

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division

June 28, 2019

Beverly Price and Dale Price, Plaintiffs,
Life Insurance Company of North America, et al., Defendants.



         Pending before the court are (1) a motion to dismiss plaintiffs Beverly Price and Dale Price's amended complaint against defendants ARES Holding Corporation Benefits Plan (the “Plan”) and ARES Holding Corporation (“AHC”) (collectively, the “ARES Defendants”) (Dkt. 21); and (2) the ARES Defendants' unopposed motion to file a reply (Dkt. 28). Having considered the motion to dismiss (Dkt. 21), response, reply, and applicable law, the court is of the opinion that the motion to dismiss should be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The unopposed motion to file a reply (Dkt. 28) is GRANTED.

         I. Background

         This case relates to the alleged wrongful denial of life insurance benefits under a plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). The plaintiffs' decedent, Lonnie Price Jr. (“Decedent”), worked as an IT professional for ARES Corporation (“ARES”).[1]Dkt. 1 ¶ 11. ARES is a wholly owned subsidiary of AHC. Dkt. 21 at 3. The Plan is a group employee benefits plan which offered group life insurance as well as other insurance coverage to participating AHC employees under Life Insurance Company of North America (“LINA”) Group Policy FLX-964559 (the “Policy”). Id. The Decedent participated in the Plan while employed by ARES. Id. The Policy identifies AHC as the Plan Sponsor and Plan Administrator.[2] Dkt. 12, Ex. 1 at 22. AHC appointed defendant LINA, the Plan's underwriter, as the named fiduciary and claims administrator of the Policy. Id. at 23. In addition, AHC maintained an administrative services agreement with defendant Northgate Benefits and Insurance, LLC (“Northgate”) to act as a third-party administrator of the Plan. Dkt. 17, Ex. 2. The Policy provided the Decedent with a life insurance benefit of $135, 000 and $200, 000 in supplemental coverage. Dkt. 1 ¶ 17. Beverly Price and Dale Price, Decedent's wife and son respectively, were named as Decedent's beneficiaries under the Plan and Policy issued by LINA. Dkt. 21 at 3.

         In February 2016, Decedent was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Dkt. 1 ¶ 21. Decedent, however, continued working for ARES on a part-time basis with varied hours until his death in September 2017. Id. During this period, Decedent took ARES-approved intermittent Family Medical Leave Act leave, and ARES continued to deduct group life insurance premiums from Decedent's pay and provide them to LINA on his behalf. Id.

         In July 2016, Decedent was informed that he had less than one year to live, and he subsequently filed a claim for the maximum allowable terminal illness benefit of $67, 500 under the Policy. Dkt. 21 at 4. As a prerequisite for this benefit, Decedent informed AHC, Northgate, LINA, and the Plan of his terminal condition. Dkt. 1 ¶ 23. In accordance with the terms of the Policy, LINA deposited the requested terminal illness benefit into a CignaAssurance account maintained by LINA for use by the Decedent. Dkt. 21 at 4. Following Decedent's death, LINA transferred the remaining balance of the CignaAssurance account to plaintiff Beverly Price. Dkt 1 ¶ 24.

         In August 2016, a Northgate representative emailed two LINA representatives concerning the appropriate steps for the Decedent to convert or port his remaining life insurance coverage to an individual policy or otherwise maintain Decedent's life insurance coverage. Id. ¶ 27. A LINA representative responded to Northgate, claiming, “Since [Decedent] is out on disability and was 60 when the claim started (from what I can tell), the life insurance coverage can stay in effect for up to 12 months as long as premiums are paid. . . . Normally once the employment terminates, the employee should be offered conversion.” Id. ¶ 28. Following this exchange, no representatives of Northgate or AHC followed-up with LINA nor did any representatives of LINA follow-up with Northgate or AHC. Id. ¶ 30.

         Following Decedent's death in September 2017, the plaintiffs filed timely claims for Decedent's remaining life insurance proceeds. Id. ¶ 31. However, neither the Decedent nor the plaintiffs converted or attempted to covert Decedent's group life insurance coverage before filing their claims. Dkt. 21 at 5. As part of the plaintiffs' application, both AHC and Northgate submitted claim forms to LINA representing that the plaintiffs were entitled to Decedent's remaining life insurance proceeds under the Plan and Policy and Decedent's coverage was in effect through the date of his death. Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 32-33.

         LINA denied the plaintiffs' claim for life insurance benefits and further denied the plaintiffs' administrative appeal seeking review of LINA's denial of their claim. Dkt. 21 at 5. LINA determined that Decedent had lost his eligible class status by working less than thirty hours per week and should have converted his group life insurance coverage but failed to do so within twelve months of losing coverage. Dkt. 1 ¶ 34.

         The plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit in October 2018. Dkt. 1. Following the dismissal of improperly named defendants ARES Corporation and ARES Corporation Benefits Plan, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include AHC and the Plan. Dkt. 21 at 5. The Prices allege that AHC, Northgate, LINA, and the Plan:

failed to sufficiently, accurately, comprehensively, clearly or reasonably apprise Decedent or Plaintiffs of their rights and obligations under the Plan and the [LINA] Policies with regard to circumstances which may result in disqualification, ineligibility or denial or loss of life insurance benefits from the Plan or The LINA Policies as LINA claims to be the case in its denial letters, nor available steps, and how and when they should take those steps to maintain those benefits, including conversion, and in fact misled them regarding the same.

Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 45-47. The Prices further allege that AHC took part in preparing a Summary Plan Description (“SPD”) which failed to adequately inform the Decedent or the Prices of their rights and obligations to maintain eligibility under the Plan and Policy. Id. ¶¶ 43-44.

         The Prices claim entitlement to life insurance policy proceeds under the terms and provisions of both the Plan and Policy pursuant to § 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA (29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B)), alleging that they satisfy all qualifications for benefits. Dkt. 1 ¶ 51. The Prices alternatively assert a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against AHC, Northgate, LINA, and the Plan, and they claim entitlement to equitable relief under § 502(a)(3) of ERISA (29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)). Id. ¶¶ 52-54, 58. The Prices further allege that both LINA and the Plan have been unjustly enriched by the retention of premiums and life insurance benefits allegedly owed to the plaintiffs. Id. ¶ 62.

         The plaintiffs seek disgorgement of any profits AHC, Northgate, LINA, and the Plan realized by the retention of benefits allegedly owed to the plaintiffs and also seek an equitable surcharge. Id. at 13-14.

         AHC and the Plan filed the instant motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' §§ 502(a)(1)(B) and 502(a)(3) claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. 21. The ARES Defendants argue that the Prices cannot maintain a claim under § 502(a)(1)(B) because they did not identify which terms of the Plan, if any, were breached by the Plan. Dkt. 21 at 2. Additionally, the ARES Defendants argue that the Prices' § 502(a)(3) claim is precluded by the § 502(a)(1)(B) claim for recovery or, alternatively, that the plaintiffs have not ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.