Opinion ID: 723147
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Equitable Estoppel Claim

Text: 12 Ms. Bowers sought a declaration that she was entitled to receive medical benefits without a maximum lifetime benefit ceiling as provided in both the Active Plan and Plan D. Ms. Bowers asserts that misrepresentations made to her by Sears estopped Sears from providing otherwise. The issue of Sears' representations is hotly contested by both sides. One of the elements of an estoppel claim in an ERISA action is detrimental reliance. Armistead v. Vernitron Corp., 944 F.2d 1287, 1298 (6th Cir.1991). Once again, we agree with the district court: The lack of evidence concerning [the detrimental reliance] element negates plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff simply did not have the opportunity to elect an alternative plan more attractive than Plan D, and therefore she can prove no detrimental reliance upon the representations allegedly made by Sears. 13 Judge Bell correctly noted that regardless of the option Ms. Bowers chose when the Active Plan terminated, she would have been in the present predicament when she became eligible for Medicare in January 1993. Since the conversion plans all terminated coverage upon Medicare eligibility, the factual determination regarding the representations would not affect the outcome of her claim and is, therefore, not material. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986).