Opinion ID: 3046981
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evans’s Other Claims

Text: Evans makes several other claims, none of which merit fulsome analysis. Evans points to a New Jersey regulation that discretionary clauses are void as contrary to public policy, but the regulation is only applicable as of January 1, 2008, and only prohibits those provisions that claim to reserve sole discretion to the carrier. See N.J. Admin. Code. § 11:4 - 58.4. MetLife’s policy does not reserve sole discretion. Evans also makes a breach of fiduciary claim, but she acknowledged in the District Court that the claim was an alternate form of relief to recover LTD benefits. The Supreme Court has held that “equitable relief” in ERISA means a remedy typically available in equity, and that a claim for money due under a contract is “quintessentially an action at law.” Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 209-10 (2002) (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wells, 213 F.3d 398, 401 (7th Cir. 2000)). Evans claims that she requested a description of benefits from CDM and CDM did 8 not send it promptly, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c). CDM had switched carriers just before Evans’s request and did not have the updated benefits descriptions booklet; it sent Evans the previous plan’s booklet with a note of explanation. When Evans requested the updated booklet, CDM sent it promptly. The District Court declined to impose statutory penalties on CDM for its actions, and we will not disturb that decision. As such, we will not address CDM’s statute of limitations arguments as to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c). Finally, Evans argues that the benefits description was legally deficient because it did not precisely state that she had a right not to have her LTD benefits claim denied based on an inaccurate job description. ERISA requires that a description must be written clearly and accurately, and must be comprehensive enough to “reasonably apprise participants” of their rights and obligations under the plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1022(a). We agree with the District Court that it would be unreasonable for a benefits description to spell out every conceivable circumstance in which benefits may or not be denied, and that the benefits description in this case complied with ERISA’s requirements.