Doc#: 1314647 v1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SUSAN BARISH : CIVIL ACTION

 :

Plaintiff :

 :

vs. : NO. 02-CV-4244

 :

SECURITY MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE :

COMPANY OF NEW YORK :

:

Defendant :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of , 2002, upon consideration of 

the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint of Defendant, Security Mutual Life Insurance Company of

New York, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the response, if any,

thereto, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that Security Mutual’s Motion is GRANTED and

that Barish’s Complaint is hereby DISMISSED as subject to ERISA federal preemption.

BY THE COURT:

_____________________________

J.

Case 2:02-cv-04244-HB Document 2 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 1 of 5
Doc#: 1314647 v1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SUSAN BARISH : CIVIL ACTION

 :

Plaintiff :

 :

vs. : NO. 02-CV-4244

 :

SECURITY MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE :

COMPANY OF NEW YORK :

:

Defendant :

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANT, 

SECURITY MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK

Defendant, Security Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, by and through its

attorneys, White and Williams LLP, respectfully submits the following Motion to Dismiss pursuant to

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 7.1 of the Local Rules of the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and, in support thereof, avers as follows:

1. Plaintiff, Susan Barish, commenced this action on June 6, 2002 by filing a Complaint in

the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. A copy of this Complaint is

submitted herewith as Exhibit “1.”

2. On or about June 28, 2002, Security Mutual filed a Notice of Removal to this Court on

the basis of ERISA federal question and diversity jurisdiction.

Case 2:02-cv-04244-HB Document 2 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 2 of 5
Doc#: 1314647 v1

-2-

3. Underlying this matter is Barish’s assertion in her Complaint that Security Mutual issued

a group policy of insurance, which included life insurance, to JAL Associates, Inc., numbered

SP33,845, under which she claims entitlement to life insurance benefits as the named beneficiary of her

deceased husband, a former employee of JAL. Plaintiff’s Complaint, ¶¶10, 15.

4. Barish claims in her Complaint that she has made proper demand for life insurance

benefits under this contract purportedly covering her husband, but that she has not received the benefits

claimed. Plaintiff’s Complaint, ¶¶17-18.

5. An alleged copy of the Security Mutual policy numbered SP33,845 is attached as

Exhibit “A” to Plaintiff’s Complaint. See Exhibit “1” hereto.

6. Barish avers that this group insurance policy was “provided...to all employees of JAL

Associates, Inc.” Plaintiff’s Complaint, ¶10.

7. This policy is part of an employee welfare benefit plan established and/or maintained by

an employer. See Exhibit “A” to Plaintiff’s Complaint, e.g. the Eligibility provisions and Schedule of

Benefits, attached hereto as part of Exhibit “1.” 

8. The policy was issued to employer, JAL Associates, Inc. identified on p.1 of the policy

as the “Policyholder.” Eligible persons, as defined in the policy and as long as they met the “Active

Work” provisions, included two classes: “A. Any such eligible Employee who is an Officer [or] B.

Any other such eligible Employee.” Id. , Definitions. 

9. Further, attached as Exhibits “B” and “C” to Plaintiff’s Complaint are copies of a

purported Group Premium Statement addressed to the employer, JAL Associates, Inc., and an alleged

group Enrollee and Dependents List. See Exhibits “B” and “C” to Plaintiff’s Complaint, attached

Case 2:02-cv-04244-HB Document 2 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 3 of 5
Doc#: 1314647 v1

-3-

hereto as part of Exhibit “1.”

10. The Security Mutual policy is thus an employee welfare benefit plan subject to 

the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §1001, et seq.

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S 

COMPLAINT ON THE BASIS OF

ERISA FEDERAL PREEMPTION 

11. Security Mutual incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in full, the

averments of paragraphs 1 through 10, above.

12. Barish’s Complaint consists of only one count asserting breach of contract. Plaintiff’s

Complaint, ¶19.

13. Said Complaint does not validly set forth a cause of action against Security Mutual

because under ERISA the Complaint raises a federal question and is subject to federal preemption.

14. Since the group insurance policy under which Barish seeks benefits is part of an ERISA

plan, federal ERISA law applies and preempts the state law claims and demands set forth in Plaintiff’s

Complaint.

15. Hence, Barish has failed to state a claim against Security Mutual in her Complaint,

which should be dismissed in its entirety. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant, Security Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, for all the

foregoing reasons and those set forth in the attached Brief in Support, and because Plaintiff’s claims are

subject to ERISA federal preemption respectfully requests that the Court

Case 2:02-cv-04244-HB Document 2 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 4 of 5
Doc#: 1314647 v1

-4-

enter an Order granting its Motion and dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint.

WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP

By: ___________________________________

Elizabeth A. Venditta, Esquire

Attorney I.D. No. 36000

1800 One Liberty Place

Philadelphia, PA 19103-7395

(215) 864-6392

Attorneys for Defendant,

Security Mutual Life Insurance

Company of New York

Dated: July 2, 2002

Case 2:02-cv-04244-HB Document 2 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 5 of 5