Opinion ID: 161335
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Established or Maintained

Text: 27 Finally, Mr. Sipma argues that the district court erred in finding that the corporation established or maintained an employee benefit plan. We find that the evidence in the record supports the district court's decision. This court has stated that: 28 [T]he established or maintained requirement is designed to ensure that the plan is part of an employment relationship. . . . [W]e determine whether the plan is part of an employment relationship by looking at the degree of participation by the employer in the establishment or maintenance of the plan. An employer's mere purchase of insurance for its employees does not, without more, constitute an ERISA plan. An important factor in determining whether a plan has been established is whether the employer's purchase of the policy is an expressed intention by the employer to provide benefits on a regular and long-term basis. 29 Gaylor, 112 F.3d at 464 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 30 While merely purchasing insurance is insufficient to establish an ERISA plan, the purchase of a group policy or multiple policies covering a class of employees offers substantial evidence that a plan . . . has been established. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, an employer's payment of premiums is substantial evidence that a plan has been established. See, e.g., Postma v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 223 F.3d 533, 537 (7th Cir. 2000) (An employer establishes or maintains a plan if it enters a contract with the insurer and pays its employees' premiums.); Madonia, 11 F.3d at 447 (Under this statutory definition, employers may easily establish ERISA plans by purchasing insurance for their employees.); id. (noting the well-established rule that payment of premiums on behalf of . . . employees is substantial evidence that a plan, fund or program was established (internal quotation marks omitted)). Furthermore, [t]he fact that an employer delegates part of the operational responsibility for the plan to the insurer does not mean that it did not 'establish or maintain' a plan. Gaylor, 112 F.3d at 465; accord Robinson v. Linomaz, 58 F.3d 365, 368 (8th Cir. 1995) ([T]here is no requirement that the employer play any role in the administration of the plan in order for it to be deemed an [employee welfare benefit plan] under ERISA.). 31 The corporation took action to provide disability insurance on a regular and long-term basis to Mr. Sipma and Mr. Byron and paid the premiums for the insurance. We find that this is sufficient to satisfy the established and maintained requirement.