Opinion ID: 795275
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court Correctly Dismissed Subclaims (a), (b), and (c) of Count II

Text: 33 Plaintiff's Count II alleged that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and obligations as follows: 34 (a) Defendants failed to make and authorize short term disability and long term disability benefit payments to plaintiff at a time when Lafayette and/or MTA knew or should have known that he was entitled to such benefits; 35 (b) Defendants unreasonably and/or arbitrarily withheld payments in bad faith knowing the plaintiff's claims to be valid; 36 (c) Defendants unreasonably, arbitrarily and in bad faith failed to pay plaintiff's benefits at a time when defendant[s] had insufficient information to justify such actions; 37 (d) Defendant MTA failed to provide a written plan document and a claims procedure for the STD and LTD policies as required by ERISA §§ 402 and 503 respectively; 38 (e) Other breaches of fiduciary duties yet unknown, but which will become known to plaintiff through discovery. 39 (J.A. at 22.) Plaintiff's claims under Count II were brought under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), ERISA's catch all remedial section. 40 The district court reasoned that subclaims (a) through (c) were merely restatements of Plaintiff's claim for benefits. The district court reasoned that Plaintiff's ability to bring suit for payment of benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1) precluded Plaintiff's suit under the catch-all remedial section for those subclaims sounding as failure to pay due benefits. See Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489, 512, 116 S.Ct. 1065, 134 L.Ed.2d 130 (1996); see also Wilkins, 150 F.3d at 615-16 (Because § 1132(a)(1)(B) provides a remedy for [the plaintiff's] alleged injury . . . he does not have a right to a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty pursuant to § 1132(a)(3) . . . . To rule in [the plaintiff's] favor would allow him and other ERISA claimants to simply characterize a denial of benefits as a breach of fiduciary duty, a result which the Supreme Court expressly rejected.) (citing Varity Corp., 516 U.S. at 512, 116 S.Ct. 1065 (1996)). 41 The district court was correct. The allegedly wrongful actions referred to in subclaims (a) through (c) all relate to Plaintiff's denial of benefits and point to the same remedy as Plaintiff's claim under Count I. As such, Plaintiff is precluded from using § 1132(a)(3) for allegedly wrongful actions addressable under § 1132(a)(1). 42