IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

FRANK BLAIR, an individual, § 

 § 

 Plaintiff, § 

 § 

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-651-MEF 

AETNA LIFE INS COMPANY, § 

AMERICOLD LOGISTICS, LLC, § 

DAWN SANFORD, et al. § 

 Defendants. § 

PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANTS’ AETNA LIFE INS. COMPANY, 

AMERICOLD LOGISTICS, LLC AND DAWN SANFORD’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 In compliance with this Court’s Order of August 4, 2006, Plaintiff, Frank Blair offers this 

memorandum brief in opposition to Defendant, Aetna Life Ins. Company, Americold Logistics, LLC 

and Dawn Sanford’s Motions to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. For the 

reasons stated herein, plaintiff asks this Court to deny defendants’ motions. 

FACTS

1. On November 20, 2002, Blair purchased life insurance coverage in the amount of $40,000 for 

Sandra Blair. 

2. A deduction in the amount of $2.77 was taken from Blair’s paycheck each pay period for 

supplemental life insurance on Sandra Blair until July 11, 2004, approximately three weeks after 

Sandra Blair’s death. 

3. On June 16, 2004, Sandra Blair expired. 

4. Thereafter, on July 27, 2004, defendant, Aetna Life Ins. Company informed Blair that no 

coverage existed. See correspondence attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Case 2:06-cv-00651-MEF-SRW Document 9 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 1 of 5
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

On or about June 14, 2006, Blair commenced the present lawsuit by filing a complaint in the 

Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama. Asserting diversity jurisdiction and ERISA claims,

Defendants removed this matter to this Court. 

Plaintiff’s claims against defendants include fraud, breach of contract and negligence in

collecting and processing Blair’s premiums for life insurance. 

ARGUMENT

Plaintiff is not required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to set out in detail the facts

upon which he bases his claim. All that is required is a short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The statement must be sufficient to afford the 

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Thus, the issue of a 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail on his or her claims, but 

whether the allegations contained in the complaint would be sufficient to allow discovery as their proof.

Whitney Info. Network, Inc. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, 2005 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 24920 (D.Fla., July 14, 2005

decided). 

 Defendants first contend that Blair’s claims should be dismissed because the law is clear that in

ERISA actions, you must exhaust available administrative remedies before suing in Federal Court.

(Defendants’ Brief P. 3) There is absolutely no evidence before this Court that Blair received a copy of 

an insurance policy from any source, including Aetna Life Ins. Company. In fact, the evidence implies

and supports the contrary. Blair received a letter from Aetna dated July 27, 2004, that reads as follows: 

Please accept our condolences at the recent death of your wife. 

Unfortunately, we have researched our records and found that as of the 

date of Mrs. Blair’s death you did not have dependent spouse coverage

in force. Our records reflect that you had elected dependent child 

2

Case 2:06-cv-00651-MEF-SRW Document 9 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 2 of 5
coverage, but not spousal coverage. Therefore there is no life benefit 

payable for this claim. 

Please contact your employer if you have any questions regarding this

matter. 

Plaintiff’s Exhibit A. 

A fair reading of this letter would indicate that Aetna never wrote a policy of insurance for 

Sandra Blair. Consequently, if no policy was ever taken out, Blair would not have received a copy of the 

insurance policy that would have alerted him of the necessity to pursue administrative remedies. It

appears that the first time a policy was produced would have been after the filing of the lawsuit by Blair.

A fair reading of the July 27th letter also supports that Blair was not advised of his need to pursue

administrative remedies prior to filing a lawsuit. The question that begs to be answered is what

administrative remedies are available against Aetna Life Ins. Company if, in fact, Aetna never placed in 

force a life insurance policy for Sandra Blair. An argument can certainly be made that the premiums

taken from Blair’s paycheck were never forwarded to Aetna Life Ins. Company. 

Clearly, the July 27, 2004 letter did not adequately inform Blair of his rights and obligations.

Law supports that the defendants cannot now contend that the claim fails because he did not exhaust 

administrative remedies. See Syed v. Hercules, Inc., 214 F.3d 155, 162 (3rd Cir. 2000) wherein the Court

cited Counts v. American General Life & Accident Inc. Co., 111 F.3d 105, 108 (11th Cir. 1997) for the 

proposition that where a benefit termination letter does not comply with statutory and regulatory 

requirements, time limits for bringing administrative appeal are not enforced against claimant; thus the 

remedy for violation is to remand to plan administrator so claimant gets benefit of full and fair review. 

Consequently, Blair’s complaint should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust any alleged

administrative remedy in light of the fact that there is no proof that he received a copy of any 

document alerting him of his administrative remedy duties nor did the termination letter alert him of

any such duties. At the very least, Blair should be afforded his administrative appeal rights. Again, it 

3

Case 2:06-cv-00651-MEF-SRW Document 9 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 3 of 5
should be pointed out, what rights would be available if an insurance policy was never taken out 

because Aetna Life Ins. Company never received any premiums or notice of Blair’s request for such a

policy. Attached as Exhibit B are Blair’s payroll stubs showing the deductions of premiums for life 

insurance policy at issue. 

Defendants’ next contend that the policy by its express terms, provides spousal life insurance 

only to a claimant’s “legal spouse”. (Defendants’ Brief P. 4) This defense may be appropriate if a 

policy was written by Aetna Life Ins. Company. However, a fair reading of Aetna’s termination

letter to Blair would indicate that a policy of life insurance on Sandra Blair was never issued. 

Therefore, the claims remain as to why Frank Blair was paying insurance premiums for such a policy 

for many months when in fact the policy was never written. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the 

Alternative, for Summary Judgment. The evidence indicates that Blair never received an insurance 

policy alerting him of his administrative duties nor did the July 27, 2004 termination letter alert him of

his administrative duties. Additionally, a fair reading of the evidence would indicate that Blair paid life 

insurance premiums for Sandra Blair. These premiums were deducted from his paychecks. These 

deductions continued over many months. Blair had reason to believe that he had in effect a policy of

life insurance for Sandra Blair. Apparently, the premiums deducted from his checks were (1) never

forwarded to Aetna Life Ins. Company (2) Aetna Life Ins. Company denied the issuance of a policy but 

this denial was not provided to Blair (3) Aetna failed to convey its denial. 

4

Case 2:06-cv-00651-MEF-SRW Document 9 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 4 of 5
 Respectfully submitted: 

 /S/ Ralph Bohanan, Jr. 

 RALPH BOHANAN, JR.

 Attorney for Plaintiff

 Bar Number: ASB-3857-B41R

OF COUNSEL: 

BOHANAN & KNIGHT, P.C. 

One Perimeter Park South 

Suite 318 North 

Birmingham, Alabama 35243 

Telephone: (205) 977-2200 

Facsimile: (205) 977-2555 

ralphb@bohananknight.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do hereby certify that on the 21st day of August, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with

the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the 

following: Amelia Driscoll at adriscoll@bradleyarant.com and James S. Christie, Jr. at 

jchristie@bradleyarant.com. 

 /S/ Ralph Bohanan, Jr. 

 OF COUNSEL

5

Case 2:06-cv-00651-MEF-SRW Document 9 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 5 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00651-MEF-SRW Document 9-2 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00651-MEF-SRW Document 9-3 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00651-MEF-SRW Document 9-3 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00651-MEF-SRW Document 9-3 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00651-MEF-SRW Document 9-3 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00651-MEF-SRW Document 9-3 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00651-MEF-SRW Document 9-3 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 6 of 6