Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00210/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00210-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHERIE SMITH, : 

: 

Plaintiff, : 

: 

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-0210-P-M

: 

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE : 

COMPANY OF AMERICA; : 

UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION; and : 

UNION PLANTERS CORPORATION, : 

: 

Defendants. : 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant UnumProvident

Corporation (hereinafter UPC) (Doc. 6) has been referred for

report and recommendation, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

Local Rule 72.2. Jurisdiction has been invoked in this Court

under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as it is brought pursuant to the

provisions of The Employee Retirement Security Act (hereinafter

ERISA). 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. After consideration, it is

recommended that Defendant’s motion be denied.

When the Court considers a motion to dismiss, the nonmoving party’s allegations are accepted as true. Hishon v.

King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). “A court may dismiss

a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted

under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the

Case 1:05-cv-00210-KD-M Document 14 Filed 06/09/05 Page 1 of 5
2

allegations.” Id. (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46

(1957)). A complaint may be dismissed, however, under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), “on the basis of a

dispositive issue of law.” Executive 100, Inc. v. Martin

County, 922 F.2d 1536, 1539 (11th Cir.) (citing Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989)), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 810

(1991). “The threshold of sufficiency that a complaint must

meet to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a

claim is exceedingly low.” Quality Foods de Centro America,

S.A. v. Latin American Agribusiness Development Corp., S.A.,

711 F.2d 989, 995 (11th Cir. 1983). 

The facts are, briefly, as follows. Plaintiff Sherie

Smith began working for Defendant Union Planters Corporation

(hereinafter Planters) as a loan officer in October 2003 (Doc.

1, Complaint ¶ 14). As an employee, Plaintiff secured life

insurance benefits for herself and her husband (id. at ¶¶ 15-

18). Smith’s husband died July 3, 2004 (id. at ¶ 24). 

Plaintiff submitted a death certificate and a claim for

benefits to UPC, but was denied coverage (id. at ¶¶ 25-28). 

Smith appealed the decision, but was again denied (id. at ¶

29). Plaintiff brought this action on April 7, 2005, raising

the claims that spousal benefits had been improperly withheld

from her by Defendants UPC and Unum Life Insurance Company of

Case 1:05-cv-00210-KD-M Document 14 Filed 06/09/05 Page 2 of 5
1“[A] person is a fiduciary with respect to a plan to the extent

(i) he exercises any discretionary authority or discretionary control

respecting management of such plan or exercises any authority or

control respecting management or disposition of its assets, (ii) he

renders investment advice for a fee or other compensation, direct or

indirect, with respect to any moneys or other property of such plan,

or has any authority or responsibility to do so, or (iii) he has any

discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the

administration of such plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 2001(21). 

3

America (hereinafter Unum Life) and that Defendant Planters

violated its fiduciary duty by misrepresentation (id. at ¶¶ 35-

40). 

On May 3, 2005, UPC filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting

that although it is the parent company of Unum Life, the two

corporations are separate companies with different boards and

books (Doc. 6, ¶¶ 1-3, 5). UPC asserts that it has no

connection to the insurance policy which is the subject of this

action and that it should, therefore, be dismissed (id. at ¶¶

6-7). 

Plaintiff has responded to UPC’s Motion and appended a

contract in which Unum Life gives UPC administrative duties,

including comprehensive claims management services (Doc. 13,

Exhibit A, ¶ 1.1 and Appendix ¶ B(4)). A specific, listed duty

includes “determin(ing) if claims are payable” (id. at Appendix

¶ B(4)). Smith argues that UPC has assumed a fiduciary status

as defined by ERISA in 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21).1

After reviewing the evidence of record, the Court finds

Case 1:05-cv-00210-KD-M Document 14 Filed 06/09/05 Page 3 of 5
4

Plaintiff’s argument that UPC has assumed a fiduciary role with

regard to her spousal benefits to be persuasive based on the

record before the Court at this time. Therefore, it is

recommended that Defendant UPC’s Motion to Dismiss be denied

(Doc. 6).

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation

or anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service

of this document, file specific written objections with the

clerk of court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo

determination by the district judge of anything in the

recommendation and will bar an attack, on appeal, of the

factual findings of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir.

1988); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B,

1982)(en banc). The procedure for challenging the findings and

recommendations of the magistrate judge is set out in more

detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by

filing a “Statement of Objection to Magistrate

Judge’s Recommendation” within ten days after being

served with a copy of the recommendation, unless a

different time is established by order. The

statement of objection shall specify those portions

of the recommendation to which objection is made and

the basis for the objection. The objecting party

shall submit to the district judge, at the time of

filing the objection, a brief setting forth the

party’s arguments that the magistrate judge’s

recommendation should be reviewed de novo and a

different disposition made. It is insufficient to

submit only a copy of the original brief submitted

to the magistrate judge, although a copy of the

original brief may be submitted or referred to and

incorporated into the brief in support of the

objection. Failure to submit a brief in support of

Case 1:05-cv-00210-KD-M Document 14 Filed 06/09/05 Page 4 of 5
5

the objection may be deemed an abandonment of the

objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to

a Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or

judgment can be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the

magistrate judge finds that the tapes and original records in

this action are adequate for purposes of review. Any party

planning to object to this recommendation, but unable to pay

the fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial

determination that transcription is necessary is required

before the United States will pay the cost of the transcript.

DONE this 9th day of June, 2005.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00210-KD-M Document 14 Filed 06/09/05 Page 5 of 5