IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

TIMOTHY R. COLLINSWORTH, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

VS. § Civil Action No. 3-04-CV-1397-M

§

AIG INSURANCE CO., §

§

Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Interest, Costs and Attorneys’ Fees

in connection with a claim Plaintiff has successfully asserted under ERISA accidental disability

policies. On November 1, 2005, this Court denied Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

and granted, in part, Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, remanding Plaintiff’s

claim to Defendant AIG Life Insurance Company for further adjudication consistent with the

Court’s opinion. On remand, Defendant at first denied Plaintiff’s claim, but on appeal to the

ERISA Appeals Committee, that determination was overturned and Plaintiff’s claim was

approved. Plaintiff now seeks an award from this Court of attorneys’ fees and interest as a result

of those determinations. 

Attorney’s Fees and Court Costs

The relevant statute, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1), authorizes a court “in its discretion” to

“allow a reasonable attorney’s fee and costs of action to either party.” The Fifth Circuit has set

out the factors for district courts to consider in determining how to exercise their discretion with

respect to attorney’s fee awards:

(1) The degree of the opposing parties’ culpability or bad faith;

 

 Case 3:04-cv-01397-M Document 69 Filed 12/28/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID 674
(2) the ability of the opposing parties to satisfy an award of attorneys’ fees;

(3) whether an award of attorneys’ fees against the opposing parties would deter other

persons acting under similar circumstances;

(4) whether the parties requesting attorneys’ fees sought to benefit all participants and

beneficiaries of an ERISA plan or to resolve a significant legal question regarding

ERISA itself; and

(5) the relative merits of the parties` position. 

Lain v. UNUM Life Insurance Company, 279 F.3d 337, 348 (5th Cir. 2002), citing Iron Workers

Local No. 272 v. Bowen, 624 F.2d 1255, 1266.

The Court, in its discretion, determines that attorney’s fees should not be awarded to

Plaintiff. The Defendant did not act in bad faith or otherwise act culpably, and the Court does

not conclude that an award of attorney’s fees in this case would deter improper conduct of the

Defendant or others. Further, the Court does not believe the actions of Plaintiff sought to benefit

others nor that the case resolved a significant legal question under ERISA. Although Defendant

certainly could pay such an award, and although Plaintiff’s position prevailed on summary

judgment, and ultimately on remand, at the summary judgment stage, the Court reviewed the case

on a de novo basis and found that Defendant had not abused its discretion. Considering all of the

Lain-Iron Workers factors, the Court determines that attorney’s fees should not be awarded in

this case.

The Court does exercise its discretion and inherent authority to tax court costs against the

Defendant. See generally Schadler v. Anthem Life Ins. Company, 147 F.3d 399 (5th Cir. 1998).

Interest

The Court reluctantly concludes that it has no authority to award interest to the Plaintiff. 

Defendant correctly notes the distinction between 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1), under which a person

such as the Plaintiff can recover, and 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2), under which a plan or fiduciary can

recover. The former does not provide for the award of interest, while the latter does so provide. 

 

 Case 3:04-cv-01397-M Document 69 Filed 12/28/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID 675
Plaintiff provides no authority for this Court to award interest where, as here, the Court is not

itself making an award of damages. The Court therefore declines to enter an award of interest.

Therefore, the Court will enter a Judgment dismissing this case with prejudice, with costs

of court to be paid by the Defendant.

SO ORDERED this 28th day of December, 2006.

_________________________________

Barbara M. G. Lynn

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-01397-M Document 69 Filed 12/28/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID 676