Opinion ID: 795595
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: United Distributors Plan

Text: 19 The subrogation and reimbursement provision in the United Distributors Plan creates a lien on any amount recovered by the Covered Person whether or not designated as payment for medical expenses. PR1-1, Exh. G at 63. It further clarifies that [t]he Covered Person . . . must repay to the Plan the benefits paid on his or her behalf out of the recovery made from the third party or insurer. Id. (emphasis added). Thus, language essentially identical to the Supreme Court's characterization of the plan language in Sereboff, specifies both the fund (recovery from the third party or insurer) out of which reimbursement is due to the plan and the portion due the plan (benefits paid by the plan on behalf of the defendant). Unlike in Knudson, a significant portion of the funds specified went directly into the Parrotts' bank account and, thereby, was in their possession for purposes of this case. Thus, at the time they filed their suit, Popowski and the Commerce Group sought not to impose personal liability on [Parrott], but to restore to the plaintiff[s] particular funds or property in [Parrott's] possession. See Knudson, 534 U.S. at 214, 122 S.Ct. at 714-15. Accordingly, we conclude that Popowski and the Commerce Group have stated a claim for appropriate equitable relief under § 1132(a)(3) and that the district court erred in dismissing the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.