Opinion ID: 530035
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: connecticut general appeal

Text: 5 On February 11, 1985, Floyd Krentz filed a complaint against his former employer Nicholas Turkey Breeding Farms, Inc., Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, MONY and Does 1 through 100 for tortious refusal to pay benefits. The complaint alleged causes of action for violation of California Insurance Code Section 790.03 et seq.; breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; breach of a fiduciary relationship; intentional infliction of emotional distress; intentional misrepresentation; and negligent misrepresentation. On May 5, 1987, Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (Connecticut General) removed the action to federal court contending that the state law causes of action were actually artfully pled ERISA claims. 6 Connecticut General then filed a motion to dismiss the complaint arguing that, once the complaint is recharacterized as an ERISA claim, it should be dismissed because ERISA does not grant a private right of action for delay in processing claims and ERISA bars all claims for extracontractual damages and punitive damages. Krentz opposed the motion contending that the plan was a private insurance policy, not an employee benefit plan governed by ERISA and that claims for prospective benefits are not preempted by ERISA. Krentz also filed counter motions for leave to file an amended complaint and to remand the action back to state court. 7 On February 23, 1988, the district court entered the following order: 8 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend is denied as being moot; 9 2. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted only on the issue of insurance and prospective relief; 10 3. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on the basis of ERISA preemption is denied; 11 4. Plaintiff's Motion for Remand is granted, but stayed until such time as to allow the Defendants to take an interlocutory appeal on the status of the conversion. 3 12 On April 15, 1988, the district court amended its order to include: 13 It is further ordered that the motion of Defendant CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE is hereby denied solely due to the determination that there is no ERISA preemption pertaining to the conversion policy involved in this case. I certify that this order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. 14 On April 25, 1988, Connecticut General filed this petition for leave to appeal under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b).