Opinion ID: 2981252
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conclusion

Text: We conclude that Plaintiff may not seek individual recovery of her husband’s life insurance benefits under § 1132(a)(2). We further find that ADP did not act as a fiduciary with respect to Plaintiff’s life insurance plan inasmuch as ADP did not have discretionary authority or control over the plan. Finally, ERISA does not require individualized notification of an employee’s conversion rights and Defendants provided Walker a copy of the summary plan as well as two separate notifications of his right to convert the life insurance policy. For these reasons, we AFFIRM the order of the district court. 4 Both Defendants raised two additional arguments, neither of which were decided by the district court. The first argument was whether the breach of fiduciary claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. This issue was not fully developed by the parties and the record is incomplete as to the dates of the filing of appeals to the plan administrator. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for this Court to make a speculative finding concerning the tolling of the statute of limitations and the presence of extenuating circumstances. ADP also argues that Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed for failure to join indispensable parties. Inasmuch as neither claim was ruled upon by the district court, we decline to rule upon these issues on appeal. See generally Adrian Energy Assoc. v. Michigan Public Serv. Com’n, 481 F.3d 414, 420 (6th Cir. 2007). 14