1 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-60664

Summary Calendar

JULIE WOODS DAVIS

Plaintiff - Appellant

VERSUS

AIG LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Mississippi

3:94-CV-512-WS

April 26, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Appellant sued to recover benefits under an accidental death

policy issued to Ethyl Corporation and allegedly covering her

deceased husband who was an Ethyl employee. The insurer sought

summary judgment alleging that the claim was governed by ERISA and

that Appellant had not exhausted her administrative remedies under

the Plan. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment

dismissing Appellant’s claims without prejudice. We affirm.2

Appellant raised two issues on appeal: Is E RISA applicable?

If so, is administrative exhaustion futile? While Appellant lists

t he first issue it is not adequately briefed therefore we do not

consider it. V illanueva v. CNA Insurance Companies

, 868 F.2d 684,

687 n.5 (5th Cir. 1989). Even if we did consider the argument, the

facts are undisputed that the benefit of the policy in question was

extended to employees by Ethyl Corporation as part of an ERISA

plan.

Appellant contends that exhaustion of administrative remedies

should be excused as futile principally because the outcome is

certain since, in its letter denying her claim, the Appellee stated

its reasons for considering the death not accidental and indicated

it wou ld hold her to a clear and objective evidence standard to

prevail on administrative review. These arguments cannot prevail

in the face of legal precedent in this Circuit beginning with

Denton v. First National Bank

, in which an employee contended that

the employer’s hostility toward h im was such as to make

administrative remedies futile:

Pursuing his administrative remedy after the denial of

benefits would have allowed the trustees to reconsider their

decision on Den ton’s request. The primary purposes of the

exhaustion requirement are to: (1) uphold Congress’ desire the

ERISA trustees be responsible for their actions, not the

federal courts; (2) provide a sufficiently clear record of

administrative action if litigati on should ensue; and (3)

assure that any ju dicial review of fiduciary action (or

inaction) is made under the arbitrary and capricious standard,

not de novo

. Accordingly, decisions for the trustees are

disturbed only if they are arbitrary and capricious, not on

the ba sis of what the district court would have done in the

first instance. This is necessary to keep from turning every

ERISA action, literally, into a federal case.

The logic behind the exhaustion requirement was set forth3

in Amato v. Bernard

, 618 F.2d 559 (9th Cir. 1980). The A mato

court required benefit claimants to exhaust their

administrative remedies prior to seeking federal court review

of a benefit denial. The court based its decision on an

examination of the legislative history of ERISA which clearly

suggested that “Congress inten ded to grant authority to the

courts to apply the exhaustion doctrine in suits arising under

the act.” Denton . 765 F.2d 1295 (5th Cir. 1985).

The various public policies strongly supporting the exhaustion

requirement are further stated in Medina v. Anthem Life Insurance

Co.

, 983 F.2d 29 (5th Cir. 1993) and in the Eighth Circuit opinion

in Conley v. Pitney Bowes , 34 F.3d 714 (8th Cir. 1994).

Appellant complains that the administrative process lacks

necessary standards and guidelines and that only insurance company

personnel will be involved, thereby foreclosing the possibility of

a favorable result. These arguments have been found invalid in

Denton

.

If Denton’s view of exhaustion were to prevail, no

plaintiff who knew how to claim “bitterness or hostility” on

the part of the Plan’s review committee could be compelled to

submit his claim for administrative revie w of the denial of

benefits prior to filing of a federal lawsuit. Accordingly,

benefit disputes would not only be more numerous and more

often frivolous, but less defined as a result of this evasion

of th e Congressionally mandated administrative process. We

agree with Amato that Congress, in enac ting ERISA, clearly

wanted potential plaintiffs to first exhaust their

administrative remedies before resorting to the federal courts

. . . .

Another important facet of the exhaustion requirement is

that it prevents fiduciaries from avoiding their duties under

the Plan by insulating all benefit decisions in the protective

mantel of federal judicial review . If fiduciaries were to

find their decisions more closely supervised by an intervening

federal judiciary, it is likely that they would go to court to

seek instruction by declaratory relief on questions involving

claims for benefits, rather than deciding those questions

themselves as Congress intended. By requiring exhaustion of

remedies, we strike a balance between judicial intervention

and the discharge of the fiduciary’s duties. D enton

, 765 F.2d

at 1303 and n.13.4

Exhaustion is to be excused only in the most exceptional

circumstances. C ommunications Workers of America v. AT&T

, 40 F.3d

426 (D.C. Circuit 1994). This is not such a case.

Appellant’s state law claims were properly denied as preempted

by ERISA.

AFFIRMED.