Opinion ID: 2995171
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Produce Documents under

Text: Section 502(c) of ERISA In Count IV of its complaint, Neuma sought to recover penalties under Section 502(c) of ERISA, which requires plan administrators to provide information requested by plan participants or beneficiaries within thirty days of such a request, or face a statutory fine. See 29 U.S.C. sec. 1132(c) (1)(B)./8 Neuma had made this request to AMP by letter on August 6, 1998, when it asked to be provided with a copy of the master [Provident] insurance policy, plan document and related amendments thereto, summary plan description and all other documents constituting the benefit plan and insurance policy under which the policy was maintained. R.47, Ex.A. This request was made pursuant to 29 U.S.C. sec. 1024(b)(4), one of ERISA’s disclosure provisions, which requires that: The administrator shall, upon written request of any participant or beneficiary, furnish a copy of the latest updated summary plan description, plan description, and the latest annual report, any terminal report, the bargaining agreement, trust agreement, contract, or other instruments under which the plan is established or operated. AMP claimed that it did not receive this request until December 10, 1998./9 On that date, Mooneyhan sent a copy of what she claimed was the relevant summary plan description to Neuma, and stated that she was not in possession of the master insurance policy, plan document and related amendments. Id., Ex.B. Neuma claims that the summary plan description provided by Mooneyhan at that time was outdated because it had been superceded by the Summary Plan Description described in this opinion on July 1, 1996. On February 17, 1999, AMP, through its attorneys, sent other documents to Neuma regarding the Provident Policy, including the updated Summary Plan Description and unsigned copies of other Provident group policy documents. On April 1, 1999, AMP’s attorneys provided Neuma with signed copies of those Provident group policy documents. Under ERISA, only a participant or a beneficiary is entitled to request such plan documents and seek penalties for the failure of their production. 29 U.S.C. sec.sec. 1024(b)(4) & 1132(c)(1)(B). Neuma claims that it was a beneficiary, defined by ERISA as a person designated by a participant, or by the terms of an employee benefit plan, who is or may become entitled to a benefit thereunder. 29 U.S.C. sec. 1002(8). The parties do not dispute that Larsen designated Neuma as the recipient of his life insurance benefits. However, a party such as Neuma can demonstrate that it may become entitled to a benefit, and therefore be considered a beneficiary for jurisdictional purposes, only if it can show that at the time it filed suit it had a colorable claim to vested benefits. See Riordan v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 128 F.3d 549, 552 (7th Cir. 1997); Kennedy v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 698, 700 (7th Cir. 1991) (citing Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 117-18 (1989))./10 The district court held that Neuma had not made a colorable claim that it was due benefits because the summary plan description . . . unambiguously equates the Provident Policy with the plan; therefore, Neuma’s claim for benefits was not subject to reasonable debate. R.49 at 10. We have noted that [t]he requirement of a colorable claim is not a stringent one. Panaras, 74 F.3d at 790. A plaintiff achieves status as a beneficiary if they have even an arguable claim; [o]nly if the language of the plan is so clear that any claim as an assignee must be frivolous is jurisdiction lacking. Kennedy, 924 F.2d at 700; see also Panaras, 74 F.3d at 790. Even in cases where a plaintiff’s claim ultimately failed, the possibility of success was sufficient to establish participant or beneficiary status. Kennedy, 924 F.2d at 701; see also Jackson v. E.J. Brach Corp., 176 F.3d 971, 979 (7th Cir. 1999); Riordan, 128 F.3d at 552; Panaras, 74 F.3d at 790. A determination regarding the relative strength of that claim has often been deemed to go to the merits, not to whether standing as a participant or beneficiary was demonstrated. See Riordan, 128 F.3d at 552; Kennedy, 924 F.2d at 701./11 With this minimal standard in mind, we must respectfully disagree with the district court’s conclusion that Neuma’s claim was not colorable under ERISA. The parties do not dispute that Larsen properly assigned his right to benefits to Neuma, and Neuma claimed that the language of the plan documents required AMP to continue to pay Larsen’s life insurance premiums. This legal argument is ’not so bizarre or so out of line with existing precedent’ that Neuma has failed to meet ’the low threshold of the colorable requirement.’ Panaras, 74 F.3d at 790 (quoting Andre v. Salem Technical Servs., 797 F. Supp. 1416, 1421 (N.D.