F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT July 05, 20 06 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1240 3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 2- 21 64 2- CV-KAM JEFF REY D. KAMLET, Plaintiff-Appellee Cr oss -Appe llant, ve rs us HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COM PANY, D ef en dant- Appe llant Cross-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 5, 200 6) Be fo re T JO FL A T , A

N D E RS O N and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Plaintiff Jef

frey Kam let, a

participant in an em

ploy ee benefit plan sponso red by his e m plo y er , br ough t this a ct iona ga ins t de fe ndant H ar tf or d L if e an d A cc ide nt2

I n s u r an c e C o mp an y, f

o r a l l e g e dv i o l a t i o n s o f

th e E mp l o ye e R e t i r e me n tI n c o me Se curi ty A ct of 197 4 ( “ E RI SA ”) , a s am en de d, 29 U . S. C. § 10 01 e t se q. F oll ow ing a be nc h tr ia l, the dis tr ic t c ourt aw ar de d K am le t $ 31, 008. 45, c onsi sti ng o f be ne fi ts an d pr ej udgm en t i nte re st. H ar tf or d a ppe al ed that j udgm en t t o th e E le ve nthCi rc uit , w hic h a ff irm ed the dis tr ic t c ourt. K am le t the n f ile d ape tit ionf

or a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s, seeking $1 27,184.50 in fees and $1,825.85 in taxab le costs. T he district court award edKam le t $ 87 ,24 1.4 0 i n a tt orne y s’ fees an d $ 1,5 75 .85 in co st s. H ar tf or d no wappe al s th is aw ar d of a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s. K am le t c ro ss- ap pe al s, asserting that the dis trict court er red when it calculated his attorney s’ fee s at his tor ic al , r athe r than c ur re nt r at es . I. BACKGROUND In199 5, K am le t a

ppl ie d f or lon g- te rm

dis ab ili ty

be ne fi ts f

ro m H ar tf or d. K am le t be gan r ec ei vin g m onthly paym en ts i n Ju ly

199 5. Be tw ee n 19 96 and 2 000, H art f o r dma d e as e r i e s o f

d e du c t i o n s f

r o m K a ml e t ’s b e n e f

i t s t o a d j u s tf o r i n c o me he ear ned from part-tim e em

ploym ent. T he am ountof these deductions wa s $25,700 . K am let disagreed with these deductions and , in N ovem ber 2000, he hired ana tto rn ey

to re pr es en t hi m

in his dis cu ssi ons w ithH ar tf or d r eg ar din g th e dis ag re em en t. A ft er

som e ne got iatio n, H ar

tf or d a gr ee d to c al cu late the be ne fi ts i n the m anner soughtby

Kam let, and to m ake the calc ulationretroac tive. K am let3

of fe re d to se ttl e the c la im

f or the be ne fi t am ount , plu s $1 6, 000 in atto rn ey s’ f ee s he ha d in curr ed

in the ne got iatio ns. H ar

tf or d r ef use d to pay

the a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s. K am le t the n su ed

H ar tf or d inf ed er al c ourt, a sse rt ing c la im s f or the be ne fi ts an d atto rn ey s’ f

ee s. H ar tf or d de fe nde d it se lf

on the m er its , arg uin g th at it s de duc tio ns w er e va lid . T he tr ia l c ourt r ule d f or K am le t onthe de duc tio ns i ssu e an d award edKam le t t he be ne fit s h e so ug ht . H ar tf or d arg ue s th at

K am le t sh oul d no t be r ew ar de d w itha lm ost $90 , 000 in attorney s’ fee s when he re fused to settle a $25,000 b enefits disput e. Hartford ar gue s th at

E RI SAis cl ear that pr e- lit igatio n atto rn ey s’ f ee s are not

r ec ove ra ble an d th at thi s r ule e nc our ag es se ttl em en t. H ar tf or d arg ue s th at

K am le t’ s so le purpos e in filing his law suit was to seek fee s to which he had no right. Har tford seem s to m ake two argum ents: 1) Kam let is not entit led to pursu e attorney s’ fee s be ca use he f or ce d th e lit igatio n by

pur sui ng n on- re co ve ra

ble pr e- lit igatio n f

ee s and re fu sin g H ar

tf or d’ s of fe r of f ull be ne fi ts; and 2 ) ev enif K am le t c anpur sue attor ne y s’ f ee s, the dis tr ic t c ourt a

buse d it s di sc re tio n inaw ar din g th em in thi s c as e be ca use it m isa ppl ie d th is C ir cu it’ s f

ive -f ac tor te st f or aw ar din g atto rn ey s’ f

ee s. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s aw ar d of a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s f or abuse of di sc ret io n. Si erraClu b v . Hank in so n, 3 51 F.3d13 58 , 13 61 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ).We cannot conc lude that the district cour t was cle arly

err oneous in findingthat Kamlet 1 did no t a c t in ba d f a ithin r e qu e sti ngatto rn e y s’ fe e s d ur ingthe a dmi nis tr ativ e pr oc e e din g s. 4 III . A NA LY SIS A. K am let’ s Pursuit of Pre- Litigation Attorney s’ Fee s H ar tf or d a sse rt s th at

K am le t’ s ba d f

ai th c ondu ct

is a suf fi ci en t ba sis f

or re ve rs ing the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s aw ar d of a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s. H ar tf or d a sse rt s th at

in the se ci rc um stanc es , the c ourt ne ed not e ve n c onsi de r the usu al f ive -f ac tor te st f or aw ar din g atto rn ey s’ f

ee s. H ar tf or d arg ue s th at

K am le t sh oul d no t be r ew ar de d w ith al m ost $90 , 000 in atto rn ey s’ f

ee s whe n he r ef

use d to se ttl e a $25, 000 be ne fi ts dispu te. Hartford ar gues that ERIS A is cle ar that pre- litigatio n attorney s’ fee s are not recoverable and that this rule encourages settlem ent. H artford argues that K am le t’ s so le pur

pose in fi lin g hi s law sui t w as to se ek f ee s to w hic h he ha d no ri ght . 1 As the district court pointed ou t, H artford’ s problem s could hav e been av oid ed if H ar tf or d a ct ua lly ha d te nde re d th e be ne fi ts i t c la im ed it w as w ill ing to pay K am le t. H ar

tf or d c oul d have giv enthe m one y to K am le t, or

de posi te d it

in a co urt e sc ro wf

und. A t tha t po int , the li tig at ionw oul d have c onsi ste d so le ly of K am le t’ s c la im s f

or pr e- lit igatio n atto rn ey s’ f ee s. I nst ea d, H ar

tf or d op te d to li tig at e the entire ca se. H artford did not pay Kam let his benefits; rather, in court, H artford5

ar g u edth ati to we dKa m l etn o ad d i t i o n al b en ef i t s atal l . Ha rt fo rdfo u g h tKa m l et ’s ac tio n ona ll fr ont s, a s it

w as c er ta inl y e nti tle d to do. H ar

tf or d, how ev er , c annot se ek r ef uge in a cl ai m

that i t w oul d have pa id a ll the be ne fi ts u p f ro nt. H ar tf or d di d not do this ; i n c ourt, H ar

tf or d c ha lle nge d K am le t’ s r igh t t o any a ddi tio na l be ne fi ts. If H ar tf or d ha d w on, it

w oul d have pa id n o be ne fi ts t o K am le t. H ar tf or d c annot hid e fr om the pot en tia l ne ga tiv e co nse que nc es of thi s f ull li tig at ionby

a sse rt ing it w as w ill ing to pay

the be ne fi ts b ef

or e lit igatio n c om

m en ce d. H ar

tf or d c oul d have conceded the benefits issue bu t, instead, pursued full lit igation . A gain, H artford w as e nti tle d to pur sue f

ull a dj udi catio n of

a ll iss ue s, but

it m ust a cc ep t the r isk s of th atli ti ga ti on , whi ch in cl ud e th e at to rn ey s’ fees pro vi si on s o f ERISA. In th is res pe ct , Hartf

or d’s re li an ce o n An de rs on v. Pro ct er & Gam bl e Co ., 220 F.3d 449 (6th Cir. 2000 ) is m isplaced. In Anderson, the plaintiff and her plan had a dispu te about benefits, but then reached an agre em ent. T he plaintiff then sued in f ed er al c ourt f

or a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s. T he S ixth C ir cu it he ld tha t the pla int if f co uld not recover attorney s’ fee s for service s in the adm inistrative proceedings . I n An d er s o n , h o we v er , t h e o n l y i s s u e w as th e a t t o rn eys ’ fe es . Th e mer i t s o f p l ai n t i ff ’s be ne fi t c la im

w er e not li tig at ed . I n th e ins tant c as e, H ar tf or d a sse rt ed

be fo re the co urt tha t i t ha d no obl igatio n to pay K am le t a ddi tio na l be ne fi ts. F ull li tig at ionof Kam let’ s claim

ensued. A fter this full litigation , the district court deter m ined that6

K am le t’ s li tig at ione xpe nse s sh oul d be c ove re d by H ar tf or d. H ar tf or d c oul d have availed itself of the A nderson po sition by settling Kam let’ s benefit claim and then ad dr es sin g on ly

the iss ue of

a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s inc ourt. H ar

tf or d, how ev er , is atte m pti ng t o c re at e a w in- w in s itu at ion . I f it ha d pr ev ai le d onthe m er its , it w oul d have pa id K am le t no be ne fi ts. H ow ev er , havin g lo st o n th e m er its , H ar tf or d no w w ish es to ins ulate it se lf

f ro m pay ing K am le t’ s li tig at ion -b as ed a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s by fo llo w ing A nde rs on. H ar tf or d, how ev er , did

not m ak e the sam e co m

m itm en t t o a posi tio n ( pay ing be ne fi ts) that the de fe ndant i n A nde rs on d id. H ar tf or d qu ote s th e Anderson court’ s statem ent that “ no court has ever held that a plaintiff who settles all of her E RISAclaim s at the adm inistrative stage and files suitonly to recover co sts is pe rm itt ed

to re co ve r attor

ne y s’ f ee s un de r § 11 32( g) . ” Id . a t 45 5. I n th is ca se , how ev er , the part ie s di d no t se ttl e the c la im s at the a dm ini str at ive pha se and H ar tf or d c ont inu ed

to dis put e the be ne fi ts. Ac co rd i n g l y, we c o n cl u d e t h atHa rt fo rd ’s i n i t i al o ff ert o s et t l e K amle t ’s be ne fi t c la im

did not bar K am le t f

ro m pur sui ng atto rn ey s’ f

ee s a ft er he li tig at ed

the fu ll cl ai m in co urt. B. The Guidelines for E xercising Discretion to Aw ard A ttorney s’ Fee s H ar tf or d a lso a sse rt s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt a

buse d it s di sc re tio n inaw ar din g7

fees un de r th is Cir cu it ’s gu id el in es foraward in g a tt orne y s’ fees . In a ward in g fe es , a co urt c onsi de rs suc h f

ac tor s a s: 1 ) the de gr ee of the opp osi ng p ar

ty ’ s ba d f ai th o r cu lpa bil ity ; 2) the abil ity

of the opp osi ng p ar

ty to sa tis fy an aw ar d of

a tto rn ey s’ fees; 3) whether an aw ard of attorney s’ fee s against the op posin g party would deter oth er pe rs ons ac tin g un de r sim ilar ci rc um stanc es ; 4) w he the r the party r eque sti ng attorney s’ fee s soug ht to benefit all beneficiaries and participants o f an E RISAplan or to re sol ve asig nif

ic an t l eg al que sti on i nvol vin g E RI SAit se lf ; and 5 ) the r el at ive m er its of the part ie s’ pos iti ons. D ixo n v. S ea fare rs ’ W el fare P lan, 878 F . 2d 1 411, 1412 ( 11th C ir . 198 9) . H ar tf or d c ha lle nge s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing s onthe f

ir st an d t hi rdfact or . T he f ir st c onsi de ratio n is w he the r H ar tf or d a ct ed in ba d f ai th i n de fe ndi ng i ts posi tio n inK am le t’ s law sui t. H ar tf or d arg ue s th at

thi s f ir st f ac tor is the m ost im portant. T ha t m ay

be tr ue , but w e have squ ar el y

r ej ec te d th e ar gum en t tha t the ab se nc e of

ba d f ai th i s di spos iti ve and r equir es de nia l of a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s. Wri ght

v. Hanna Steel Corp. , 270 F. 3d 13 36, 1345 (11t h Cir. 2001 ). Although th e district co urt f ound that H ar tf or d m ay not have a ct ed

in ba d f ai th, the dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound that H ar tf or d w as “ m or e cu lpa

ble ” than K am le t. W e cannot c onc lud e that this finding of fac t by

the district court is clearly err oneous . And there is am ple supp ort in the record to suppo rt the district court’ s finding of greate r culpability on the part8

of H ar tf or d. H ar tf or d’ s po sit ionon the m er its w as pr etty c le ar ly inc onsi ste nt w ith the pr ovi sio ns o f the sum m ar y plan de sc ri pti on. The third fa ctor, deterre nce, is intertwined in the issu e of bad fa ith/c ulp ab ili ty . T o th e ex te nt tha t H ar tf or d is m or e cu lpa

ble f or a dopt ing it s posi tio n onthe m er its , the n an aw ar d of a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s m ay de te r the se ty

pe s of ac tio ns. A t the ve ry

le as t, w e dis ag re e w ithH ar tf or d th at it is be havio r lik e K am le t’ s th at

sho uld be de te rr ed . U nti l H ar

tf or d a ct ua lly pa id K am le t hi s be ne fi ts, Kam le t was jus ti fie d i n s ui ng forth os e b en efi ts . O n th e oth er

f ac tor s, the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound that tw o f

av or ed K am le t, w hil e one did n ot. T he district court found th at H artford had the ability to satisfy an aw ar d of a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s. K am le t a lso be ne fi ts f ro m the c onsi de ratio n of

the r el at ive m er i t s o f t h e p ar t i es ’ po s i t i o n s . As th e d i s tri ctco u rtn o t ed , i tru l edi nKa m l et ’s favor on the m er its . W e ag re e that K am le t ha d th e str onge r posi tio n inthe lit igatio n. T he r em ai nin g f ac tor doe s no t f

av or K am le t, a s he w as not

se ek ing to be ne fitall be ne fic ia rie s o r pa rti ci pa nt s i n a n ERI SA pl an . Based on our consid eration of all five f actors, we conclude that the dis trict co urt di d no t a

buse it s di sc re tio n inaw ar din g atto rn ey s’ f ee s to K am le t f

or the lit igatio n.Har tford’s r equest for

oral a rgument is DENI ED. 2 9 C. Kam let’ s Cross-Appeal T he dis tr ic t c ourt aw ar de d K am le t atto rn ey s’ f ee s ba se d onthe r at es bil le d, rather than curr ent rates. The district court believed that th e attorney s’ fee s, as billed, adequately

com pensated Kam let. W e cannot conclude that the dis trict court abused its d iscretion in thi s case. AFFIRMED. 2