Opinion ID: 689981
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Standing to Bring an ERISA Claim

Text: 16 Peterson maintains that his claim for benefits nevertheless is governed by state law because, as a partner, he does not have standing to bring an action for benefits under ERISA. A civil action under ERISA may be brought by a participant or beneficiary. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(a)(1). A participant is any employee or former employee of an employer. Id. Sec. 1002(7). A beneficiary is a person designated by a participant, or by the terms of an employee benefit plan, who is or may become entitled to a benefit thereunder. Id. Sec. 1002(8). 17 This court already has addressed, in Harper v. American Chambers Life Ins. Co., 898 F.2d 1432 (9th Cir.1990), whether a partner insured by a policy that is part of an ERISA plan has standing to bring a civil suit to enforce ERISA. In Harper, we held that a partner could not bring a suit as a participant because only employees are participants, but that a partner could enjoy standing as a beneficiary: 18 First, we note that the broad statutory definition of a person for ERISA purposes certainly encompasses [the partners]: the term 'person' means an individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, mutual company, joint-stock company, trust, estate, unincorporated organization, association, or employee organization. See 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1002(9). Second, [the partners] are person[s] designated ... by the terms of an employee benefit plan if the [insurance] policy is an ERISA plan. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1002(8).... By the plain terms of the statutes defining person and beneficiary, then, [the partners] are ERISA beneficiaries of the [insurance] policy. 19 898 F.2d at 1434. 20 Despite Peterson's arguments to the contrary, neither our decision in Kennedy nor the Supreme Court's in Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 112 S.Ct. 1344, 117 L.Ed.2d 581 (1992), requires us to depart from our holding in Harper. Kennedy involved an attempt by two business owners to enforce an insurance policy under ERISA. To determine whether the policy was part of an ERISA plan, we remanded to the district court to determine whether the policy covered any non-owner employees. 952 F.2d at 267. Necessarily underlying our remand was the assumption that, if other employees were covered, the plan was governed by ERISA and the owners' ERISA suit could proceed. Had we believed that the owners lacked standing to enforce ERISA, even if the policy were part of an ERISA plan, we would have ruled on that basis. Thus, Kennedy actually demonstrates Harper's continued vitality. 21 In Darden, the Supreme Court clarified the definition of participant and held that traditional agency principles govern whether a person is an employee within the definition of participant, 503 U.S. at 322-28, 112 S.Ct. at 1348-50; the Court did not address the scope of beneficiary standing under ERISA. Although the Court stated as an introduction to its discussion that the plaintiff's suit could survive only if he was an employee, id. at 320-22, 112 S.Ct. at 1347, we do not interpret this single sentence as undermining Harper. The plaintiff in Darden did not claim to have standing as a beneficiary, only as a participant, see Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 796 F.2d 701, 704 n. 3 (4th Cir.1986), rev'd, 503 U.S. 318, 112 S.Ct. 1344, 117 L.Ed.2d 581 (1992); therefore, the issue decided in Harper was not considered by either the Fourth Circuit or the Supreme Court. 22 Peterson apparently would have us limit the definition of beneficiary to persons such as spouses and dependents, designated by participants to receive benefits. We conclude, though, that any person designated to receive benefits from a policy that is part of an ERISA plan may bring a civil suit to enforce ERISA. To hold otherwise would create the anomaly of requiring some insureds to pursue benefit claims under state law while requiring others covered by the identical policy to proceed under ERISA. Such a scenario would frustrate Congress's intent of achieving uniformity in the law governing employment benefits. More importantly, ERISA's plain language includes as beneficiaries not only those designated by a participant, but also those who are designated to receive benefits by the terms of an employee benefit plan. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1002(8) (emphasis added). Our interpretation in Harper of this clear statutory language is sound and has not been undermined. Peterson has standing to bring a civil suit to enforce ERISA.