Opinion ID: 198532
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did IDM or Reliastar Conceal the Terms of the Plan?

Text: 31 I.V. Services argues alternatively that equitable tolling is required because IDM or Reliastar allegedly refused repeated requests to forward a copy of the Plan, thereby concealing its terms. This argument need not detain us long. The magistrate found that what the record shows, however, is that [I.V. Services] made no effort to obtain a copy of the Plan until 1995, well after three years from the initial denial of Daly's claim for benefits. The district court echoed this finding in its order adopting the magistrate's report. 32 I.V. Services contends that this finding is not supported by the record. It points to the testimony of I.V. Services President, Maureen Teachman, who stated that she contacted IDM and Reliastar in an effort to procure a copy of the Plan. In her affidavit, however, Teachman's states that she attempted to obtain a copy of the Plan in 1995. This statement is reiterated in her deposition, where she testified that on August 10, 1995, she sent a letter to IDM via fax requesting a copy of the Plan. I.V. Services contends that, prior to this time, Teachman had spoken with an employee at IDM named Nancy Warino about getting a copy. However, Teachman testified that she had between three and six conversations with Warino, the first of which took place probably some time in the range of [the August 10, 1995] fax, a few months before perhaps. 4 33 In short, the district court was not in error in stating that I.V. Services did not seek to obtain a copy of the Plan until after the applicable limitations period had already run. Acts of alleged concealment by IDM or Reliastar after the statute had run would not warrant equitable tolling. Cf. Bernier v. Upjohn Co., 144 F.3d 178, 180 (1st Cir. 1998) (A party seeking to toll the statute must at the very least show that the information could not have been found by a timely diligent inquiry[.]) (emphasis supplied). 34