Opinion ID: 797579
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Persons empowered to bring a civil action. A civil action may be brought—

Text: 12
13 (A) for the relief provided for in subsection (c) of this section, 3 or 14 (B) to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan; . . . 15 Actions that could have been brought under § 1132, where there is no other independent legal duty that is implicated by a defendant's actions, are completely preempted by § 1132. Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 210, 124 S.Ct. 2488, 159 L.Ed.2d 312 (2004). [Section 1132] is relatively straightforward. If a participant or beneficiary believes that benefits promised to him under the terms of the plan are not provided, he can bring suit seeking provision of those benefits. A participant or beneficiary can also bring suit generically to `enforce his rights' under the plan, or to clarify any of his rights to future benefits. Id. Claims by anyone other than a `participant or beneficiary,' however, fall outside the scope of ERISA's civil enforcement section. Alexander v. Electronic Data Sys. Corp., 13 F.3d 940, 946 (6th Cir.1994); see also Michigan Affiliated Healthcare Sys. v. CC Sys. Corp. of Michigan, 139 F.3d 546, 550 (6th Cir.1998). Thus, in order for § 1132 to be applicable to the instant case, a fiduciary relationship must have existed between the parties at the time the alleged misrepresentation was made. 16 In Alexander, we held that a prospective employee was not a participant in the plan merely because he might later become an employee (and thus a participant). We rejected the district court's conclusion that because Alexander was offered employment by the defendant, and therefore, was a potential `participant' in the plan, a § 1132 preemption defense was valid. Id. We explained that had the district court properly inquired into the nature of Alexander's relationship with the defendant, it would have been clear that Alexander lacked standing to sue under ERISA (because he was never an employee) and that [defendant's] § 1132 ERISA preemption defense was misplaced (for the same reason). Id. at 947. Here, it is clear from Thurman's complaint that at the time the alleged misrepresentation was made, Thurman was a potential employee. He was not yet a participant or beneficiary under the plan and, therefore, no fiduciary relationship existed. For this reason, we hold that Thurman could not have brought a claim for breach of fiduciary duty for the alleged misrepresentations, and, therefore, that his claims are not preempted by § 1132. 17