UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

JOHN BUTLER, an individual

Plaintiff,

v.

FCA US, LLC, a Delaware limited liability

company

Defendant.

ANDREW M. HARRIS (P62265)

MICHAEL SHPIECE (P37321)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

One Woodward Avenue, Suite 2400

Detroit, MI 48226-5485

(313) 965-7991

/

Hon.

Case No.:

COMPLAINT

NOW COMES Plaintiff, JOHN BUTLER ("Butler) by and through his attorneys,

KITCH DRUTCHAS WAGNER VALITUTTI & SHERBROOK, and for his Complaint,

states as follows:

A. For more than forty-four (44) years, Butler was employed by Defendant, FCA

US, LLC's predecessor entity, Chrysler Group, LLC ("Chrysler'). As an

employee, he was entitled to various employee benefits and could obtain

additional optional benefits by paying some or all of the cost of those benefits.

In fact, Butler elected to purchase additional disability coverage and paid for

that coverage.

B. In 2008, Butler was in an automobile accident which rendered him

permanently and totally disabled—a condition Chrysler previously

acknowledged. Since then, he has been actively pursuing his claim for the

additional disability benefit he paid for during his employment

2:14-cv-14752-SFC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 12/16/14 Pg 1 of 12 Pg ID 1
u.000

01•0.1. 00406.

s0D1.405

• .1. 3.0,6i.7000

C. Unfortunately, not only has Chrysler and its insurers denied his claim—and

failed to provide coherent reasons for the denial-it has failed to produce

copies of the insurance policies and other documents which govem the

involved Plan. These failures have required Butler to hire counsel and incur

other expenses.'

Nature of Action and Jurisdiction

1. This is an action to claim benefits under the terms of the Chrysler Group,

LLC, 2002 Group Insurance Plan, Plan No. 564 ("Plan") pursuant to the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), to obtain

appropriate equitable relief pursuant to ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)(B) and obtain

relief pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4).

2. This Court has jurisdiction over Butler's claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C.

1132(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

3. Venue is proper in this District Court pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2)

and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Parties

4. Butler is an individual residing at 1315 Edmunton, Grosse Pointe Woods,

MI 48236 who is a beneficiary under the Plan.

5. The Defendant's predecessor entity, Chrys er

2

, is the Plan administrator

and named fiduciary of the Plan.

These introductory paragraphs represent a summary of the allegations in the Complaint, and are

included solely for the convenience and orientation of the reader. Therefore, Plaintiff waives any specific

answer to these paragraphs required by FRCP 12(a)(1)(A). Plaintiff does not waive an answer to the

remaining allegations of the Complaint.

2:14-cv-14752-SFC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 12/16/14 Pg 2 of 12 Pg ID 2
4.4.0narlta

scar v • •s.

N. am....

1111 %.3,%900

The Benefit

6. Butler provided exemplary service to Chrysler for approximately forty-four

(44) years and throughout his career, received consistent praise and promotions from

Chrysler. Butler finished his career at Chrysler as the Maintenance Manager at the

Mopar Center Line Complex. Exhibit A.

7. In 2002, during Butler's tenure with Chrysler, he was covered under the

Plan and purchased Voluntary Group Accident Insurance ("VGAI"), an option under the

Plan. One of the benefits included in the VGAI that Butler purchased was a Permanent

and Total Disability Benefit ("PTDB"). Exhibit B, pg. 47.

8. MetLife was the insurer under Chrysler's Plan and Benefits Express ("BE)

served as the third-party administer. Notwithstanding MetLife's and BE's roles, Chrysler

is still responsible for the Plan and its benefits.

9. For purposes of this case, the pertinent part of the Plan contained the

following criteria for a participant to receive a PTDB:

• You sustain a covered accidental injury while insured;

• You are under age 70 when the injury occurs;

You become permanently and totally disabled as a result of that injury within 180

days of the date of the accident so as to be unable to perform every duty of your

occupation during the first year of disability; and thereafter be unable to engage

in any occupation for the remainder of your life for which you are reasonably

qualified by education, training or experience; and

The disability has existed continuously for more than one year from the date you

become permanently and totally disabled. Exhibit B, pg. 47.

2

Each reference to Chrysler within the Complaint is also pled against the Defendant. The repeated references to

Chrysler are meant to simply the facts for the Court and both parties given Chryslers recent (December 15, 2014)

2:14-cv-14752-SFC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 12/16/14 Pg 3 of 12 Pg ID 3
Ketch 11.1011,as

rr alba

me

01 ..•••

-3131965-7900

10. The amount of the PTDB was $1,000,000 based upon the premiums

Butler paid for the Policy. Exhibit B, pg. 45.

11. In January, 2004, Butler received a Summary of Material Modifications

("SMM") from Chrysler. Exhibit C. The SMM referenced the VGAI repeatedly and, in

no instance did it remove the PTDB quoted supra. Exhibit C, pgs. 37, 51-53.

Additionally, page 84 of the SMM states "fflor a complete description of your ERISA

rights, refer to the January, 2002 Summary Plan Description ("SPD") [Exhibit Br

Exhibit C, pg. 84.

12. In September, 2007, Butler received a separate Summary Plan

Description ("SPD") which again referenced the VGAI, yet failed to contain any

reference to the 2002 PTDB Plan benefit. Exhibit D, pg. 35.

The Accident 

13. On July 8, 2008, Butler was severely injured in an automobile accident

("Accident") which rendered him permanently and totally disabled, a condition which

unfortunately persists to this day.

14. As a result of Butler's Accident, he satisfied all four (4) criteria for the

PTDB, a fact corroborated by the Social Security Administration's January 1, 2009,

ruling that Butler is totally disabled as a result of the Accident as well as Chrysler's May

31, 2011, determination that Butler was totally and permanently disabled and therefore

physically unable to perform his job as a Maintenance Manager of Mopar after the

Accident. Exhibit E.

name change.

2:14-cv-14752-SFC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 12/16/14 Pg 4 of 12 Pg ID 4
Butler's Attempts to Make a Claim Under the Plan and Obtain Plan 

Documents 

15. Sometime in 2011, Butler submitted a claim to MetLife for a disability

benefit under the Plan.

16. On or about March 30, 2012, MetLife denied Butlers claim ("Initial

Denial"), but its denial letter incorrectly referenced a "Traumatic Brain Injury Benefit"

from a separate Plan instead of the PTDB. Exhibit F.

17. Butler then timely appealed the Initial Denial with MetLife on May 1, 2012,

and, on July 18, 2012, MetLife issued a Second Denial ("Second Denial") which, once

again, incorrectly referenced the TBI as opposed to the PTDB. Exhibit G.

18. Perplexed by MetLife's denials Butler first requested Plan documents from

MetLife in writing on December 19, 2012. Exhibit H.

19. In an effort to secure his PTDB under the Plan, Butler also sent BE, a

letter on January 5, 2013, and, when BE failed to respond to the letter, Butler called BE,

which in turn told Butler to contact someone at MetLife. Exhibit I.

20. Butler followed-up with BE on or about February 6, 2013, and spoke with

someone named "Robert." During this conference, which lasted several hours (most of

which Butler spent on hold), Robert confirmed Butler was insured for the VGAI in the

amount of $1,000,000 as of the date of the Accident. Robert then conferenced in his

supervisor Kaiwah (last name unknown) from BE, who, after placing Butler on hold for a

long period of time once again, wrested control of the call and conferenced in MetLife

supervisor, Toshiba Brown ("Brown"). Both Brown from MetLife and Kaiwah from BE

then unequivocally told Butler (a) he was covered under the PTDB and (b) that MetLife

would send him a check if he sent the pertinent language from the Plan. Butler satisfied

this request, yet the PTDB never arrived.

2:14-cv-14752-SFC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 12/16/14 Pg 5 of 12 Pg ID 5
Kilt4 ORMAN,

VaMulti

.1660.661.,

" •

96i-7900

21. On February 28, 2013, Butler sent MetLife a letter, confirming that it

recently received information regarding the PTDB (which was a separate benefit from

the TBI referenced in Met Life's Initial Denial and Second Denial). This letter quoted the

criteria for the PTDB and described how Butler satisfied the same, which entitled him to

receive $1,000,000. It also confirmed that Butler. in writing the letter to MetLife,

followed guidelines shared to him by the Michigan Office of Insurance Regulation about

how to properly request his PTDB. Exhibit J.

22. On March 29, 2013, MetLife sent Butler a letter stating that Chrysler "does

not have the Total and Permanently Disability provision in their Group Plan" but failed to

address the fact that the PTDB appears in the Plan(see Exhibit B). Exhibit K.

23. In addition to not receiving the PTDB provided in the Plan and promised to

Butler by both MetLife and BE personnel, he has yet to receive the documents in effect

pursuant to the Plan despite his written requests for the same (Exhibit H & Exhibit I).

24. As a result of Chryslers failure to response to Butler, he has been

required to retain counsel to help him obtain the benefits and documents he is entitled

to receive under Federal law. Moreover, Chrysler has not responded to Butler's

counsel's pre-suit good-faith attempts to aid Butler in receiving his PTDB and requested

Plan information.

COUNT I 

CLAIM FOR BENEFITS PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.0 § 1132(a)(1)(B)

25 Butler re-alleges and incorporates the allegations contained in Paragraphs

1 through 24 as if fully set forth herein.

26. Butler was covered under the Plan in 2002 and consistently paid the

applicable premiums for the $1,000,000 PTDB throughout his tenure at Chrysler.

27 Butler has met all the requirements for qualifying for the PTDB benefit.

2:14-cv-14752-SFC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 12/16/14 Pg 6 of 12 Pg ID 6
Kach Drachm

.1131965.7900

28. Butler was covered under the Plan, including the PTDB, at the time of the

Accident.

29. Butler is entitled to receive his PTDB as a result of his Accident, but has

been denied this substantial benefit despite being promised the same in violation of

ERISA's guaranties and protections.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, John Butler respectfully requests that this Honorable

Court award him the amount of the unpaid PTDB benefit pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §

1132(a)(1)(B), together with applicable costs, interest, reasonable attorney fees

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1132(g)(1), and all other relief that is fair, equitable, or just.

COUNT II 

CLAIM FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF DELETION OF BENEFITS TO 29

U.S.0 § 1132(a)(1)(B) 

30. Butler re-alleges and incorporates the allegations contained in Paragraphs

1 through 29 as if fully set forth herein.

31. Although Chrysler has not produced specific documentation that it deleted

the PTDB, this Court assumes, arguendo, that it did delete the PTDB.

32. ERISA and federal common law require Chrysler to notify Butler of any

material changes to the Plan. 29 CFR § 2520.104b-3; Jensen v Sulvay, Chems, Inc.,

625 F.3d 641, 657 (10`b Cir. 2010).

33. At no time before the Accident however did Butler ever receive a SMM

that eliminated the PTDB that would have applied to him.

34. As a result of Chrysler's failure to provide Butler a SMM amending or

revoking the PTDB, the Plan must be reformed to include the PTDB (to the extent Butler

is not already entitled to the PTDB).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, John Butler respectfully requests that if this Honorable

2:14-cv-14752-SFC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 12/16/14 Pg 7 of 12 Pg ID 7
.11 II 9,s5-7900

Court determines that the PTDB was deleted from the Plan before the Accident, it also

must order Chrysler to reform the Plan to reinstate the PTDB, award Butler the amount

of the unpaid PTDB pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), together with applicable

costs, interest, reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1132(g)(1), and all other

relief that is fair, equitable, or just.

COUNT III 

CLAIM FOR EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL 29 U.S.0 4 1132(a)(31(131 

35. Butler re-alleges and incorporates the allegations contained in Paragraphs

1 through 34 as if fully set forth herein.

36. Although Chrysler has not produced specific documentation that it deleted

the PTDB, this Court assumes, arguendo, that it did delete the PTDB.

37. Chrysler, either intentionally or negligently, never informed Butler of any

change to the PTDB before the Accident, which caused Butler to reasonably and

justifiably rely upon this benefit until the date of his Accident

38. Notwithstanding its failure to notify Butler of any changes to the PTDB as

required by federal law, it is now attempting to argue that the PTDB does not apply to

Butler.

39. Chrysler's denial of the existence of the PTDB as to Butler will undeniably

prejudice Butler.

40. Given Chrysler's failure to provide Butler the required notice of any

change to the PTDB it must be equitably estopped from arguing that the PTDB does not

apply to Butler pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)(B).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, John Butler respectfully requests that if this Honorable

Court determines that the PTDB was deleted from the Plan before the Accident, it also

order Chrysler to reform the Plan to reinstate the PTDB, award Butler the amount of the

2:14-cv-14752-SFC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 12/16/14 Pg 8 of 12 Pg ID 8
kach Crrutr

Val...

virmorOol..

411)16i-7900

unpaid PTDB benefit pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2)(B), together with applicable

costs, interest, reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1132(g)(1), and all other

relief that is fair, equitable, or just.

COUNT IV

CLAIM FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. 

1024(b)(4) 

41. Butler re-alleges and incorporates the allegations contained in Paragraphs

1 through 40 as if fully set forth herein.

42. Chrysler, the Plan Administrator, has a duty to provide a plan participant

such as Butler with plan documents (including the applicable insurance policy) upon

Butler's written request. 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4).

43. Butler made his first written request for plan documents on December 19,

2012. Exhibit H.

44. Butler has not however received any material responsive to his request

regarding the Plan, which is a violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4).3

45. As the result of Chrysler's failure to provide these documents, Butler has

suffered great anguish trying to pursue his claim for benefits and has been required to

retain counsel to pursue his claim and investigation. All of this could have been avoided

had Chrysler met its statutory obligations to provide the requested documents.

46. Chrysler's failure to provide plan material in response to Butler requires

Chrysler to pay Butler damages of $110 per day for each document requested starting

3

During pre-suit communications, Chrysler provided a MetLife policy stemming from a 2008 Plan. Butler

does not believe this Policy is responsive to his December 19, 2012, initial request nor subsequent

requests because it does not reference the 2002 Plan.

2:14-cv-14752-SFC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 12/16/14 Pg 9 of 12 Pg ID 9
I, 963-7900

thirty (30) days after Butler's December 19, 2012, request. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c). 4

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, John Butler respectfully requests that this Honorable

Court award him $110 per day from January 18, 2013, to the present as a result of

Chrysler's violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4) together with applicable costs, interest

and statutory attorney fees, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1132(g)(1), and all other relief that is

fair, equitable, or just.

Dated: December 16, 2014

DET02:1952888.1

Respectfully submitted,

KITCH DRUTCHAS WAGNER VALITUTTI &

SHERBROOK

By: /s/ Andrew Hams

ANDREW M. HARRIS (P62265)

MICHAEL SHPIECE (P37321)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

One Woodward Avenue, Suite 2400

Detroit, MI 48226-5485

(313) 965-7991

4

Although the language of 29 USC 1132( c) says $100/day, that amount was increased to $110/day

pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the 1990 Act), as amended by

the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996. See 62 FR 40696 (7/29/1997).

0

2:14-cv-14752-SFC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 12/16/14 Pg 10 of 12 Pg ID 10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

JOHN BUTLER, an individual

Plaintiff,

v.

FCA US, LLC, a Delaware limited liability

company

Defendant.

ANDREW M. HARRIS (P62265)

MICHAEL SHPIECE (P37321)

Attomeys for Plaintiff

One Woodward Avenue, Suite 2400

Detroit, MI 48226-5485

(313) 965-7991

Hon.

Case No.:

JURY DEMAND 

NOW COMES Plaintiff, John Butler, by and through his attorneys, KITCH

DRUTCHAS WAGNER VALITUTTI & SHERBROOK, P.C. and hereby demands a jury

trial in the within cause of action.

Dated: December 16, 2014

• I 1) 965-7900

Respectfully submitted,

KITCH DRUTCHAS WAGNER VALITUTTI &

SHERBROOK

By: /s/ Andrew Harris

ANDREW M. HARRIS (P62265)

MICHAEL SHPIECE (P37321)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

One Woodward Avenue, Suite 2400

Detroit, MI 48226-5485

(313) 965-7991

1

2:14-cv-14752-SFC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 12/16/14 Pg 11 of 12 Pg ID 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

JOHN BUTLER, an individual

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRYSLER GROUP, LLC, a Delaware

limited liability company

Defendant.

ANDREW M. HARRIS (P62265)

MICHAEL SHPIECE (P37321)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

One Woodward Avenue, Suite 2400

Detroit, MI 48226-5485

(313) 965-7991

Hon.

Case No.:

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

hereby certify that on December 16, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing

paper with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system.

I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the paper to

the following non-ECF participants:

Chrysler Group, LLC

30600 Telegraph Rd., Suite 2345

Bingham Farms, MI 48025

By: /s/ Andrew Harris 

ANDREW M. HARRIS (P62265)

Attorney for Plaintiff

One Woodward Avenue, Suite 2400

Detroit, MI 48226-5485

(313) 965-7991

DET02:1965403.1

2:14-cv-14752-SFC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 12/16/14 Pg 12 of 12 Pg ID 12