Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04200/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04200-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4200

___________

Thomas Dam, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Life Insurance Company of North *

America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 27, 2006

Filed: November 30, 2006 

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Dam appeals the district court’s1

 grant of summary judgment in favor

of Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA) on his state law claims for

improper denial of insurance benefits following the loss of his vision in one eye. Dam

challenges only the district court’s application of the Employee Retirement Income

Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to his claims. He argues that the court erred in

Appellate Case: 05-4200 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/30/2006 Entry ID: 2114066
2

The so-called “safe harbor” provision, 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-1(j) (2005), states:

(j) Certain group or group-type insurance programs. For purposes of

Title I of the Act and this chapter, the terms “employee welfare benefit

plan” and “welfare plan” shall not include a group or group-type

insurance program offered by an insurer to employees or members of an

employee organization, under which

(1) No contributions are made by an employer or employee organization;

(2) Participation [in] the program is completely voluntary for

employees or members;

(3) The sole functions of the employer or employee organization

with respect to the program are, without endorsing the program,

to permit the insurer to publicize the program to employees or

members, to collect premiums through payroll deductions or dues

checkoffs and to remit them to the insurer; and

(4) The employer or employee organization receives no

consideration in the form of cash or otherwise in connection with

the program, other than reasonable compensation, excluding any

profit, for administrative services actually rendered in connection

with payroll deductions or dues checkoffs.

-2-

determining that the insurance benefits he sought did not fall within ERISA’s “safe

harbor” provision.2

Upon de novo review, we conclude the evidence presented by the parties

established beyond genuine dispute that Dam’s employer contributed to the insurance

program under which he sought the benefits, and thus the district court did not err in

determining that the benefits at issue did not fall within the safe harbor provision. See

Celotex Corp. v. Cattrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986) (summary judgment review

standard); Moorman v. UnumProvident Corp., 464 F.3d 1260, 1265-69 (11th Cir.

2006) (ERISA governs employee welfare benefit plan, which is “‘any plan, fund, or

Appellate Case: 05-4200 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/30/2006 Entry ID: 2114066
-3-

program . . . established or maintained by an employer’ to provide benefits through

an insurance policy” (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1)); requirements for safe harbor

exception are strict; failure to meet one criterion rendered exception inapplicable);

Medford v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 244 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1125 (D. Nev. 2003) (all four

safe harbor criteria must be met; employer’s contribution under plan precluded

applicability of safe harbor exception).

We thus conclude that the district court did not err in applying ERISA to Dam’s

state law claims, and, accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4200 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/30/2006 Entry ID: 2114066