Opinion ID: 66439
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Conflict of Interest and Abuse of Discretion

Text: Still, Stone argues that the district court erred when it determined that no conflict of interest existed, and this court should take the existence of that conflict into account when determining whether an abuse of discretion occurred. Although we need not resolve this issue, we note that Metropolitan Life instructs this court that, if an administrator has a conflict of interest, “we weigh the conflict of interest as a ‘factor in determining whether there is an abuse of discretion,’ . . . meaning we ‘take account of several different considerations of which conflict of interest is one.’” Crowell, 541 F.3d at 312 (quoting Metro. Life, 128 S.Ct. at 2350–51). And although a conflict exists where “the entity that administers the plan . . . both determines whether an employee is eligible for benefits and pays benefits out of its own pocket,” the Supreme Court further explained that: “[a] conflict of interest . . . should prove less important (perhaps to 7 See also the somewhat similar case, involving the same plans and many of the same general issues, Robertson et al. v. Chevron Corp. & Unocal Retirement Plan, No. MO07-CA-42-4, (W.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2008) (unpublished). 15 the vanishing point) where the administrator has taken active steps to reduce potential bias and to promote accuracy, for example, by walling off claims administrators from those interested in firm finances, or by imposing management checks that penalize inaccurate decisionmaking irrespective of whom the inaccuracy benefits.” Metro. Life, 128 S.Ct. at 2346, 2351. So, even assuming arguendo that a conflict exists, it is attenuated at best. The plans are both fully funded and independent legal entities, and a decision to pay benefits does not directly affect Chevron because Plan assets are not actually Chevron’s assets. Further, Chevron took multiple steps to avoid a potential conflict: (1) the Administrator and Committee neither investigated nor considered the cost of granting or denying an application for benefits; (2) their compensation was not affected by the number of appeals granted or denied; (3) Committee members did not report to the Chevron employee responsible for constructive discharge claims; (4) they had access to independent counsel to advise them; and (5) Chevron made no attempt to influence the administrative process. Stone offers no additional evidence of a conflict nor does he provide evidence that the Administrator and Committee acted arbitrarily or capriciously, resulting in an abuse of discretion. See Lain v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 279 F.3d 337, 342 (5th Cir. 2002). Thus, even if the Administrator and Committee’s interpretation had been legally incorrect, no abuse of discretion has been shown.