Opinion ID: 162293
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims Against Halliburton Defendants

Text: 13 Moffett's complaint contains three primary groups of claims against the Halliburton defendants. He also scatters throughout his complaint references to other ERISA provisions. First, Moffett alleges that Defendants are in violation of ERISA, and subject to statutory penalties, including but not limited to those referenced in 29 U.S.C. § 1132, which provides for Defendants to be `personally liable to (Plaintiff) ... in the amount of ... $100 per day' for enumerated violations. A.C. at § C-1, ¶ 2, App. 4 at 20. 14 Section 1132(a)(1)(A) of ERISA permits a participant or beneficiary to bring an action for the relief provided in subsection (c) which, in turn, provides a penalty for an administrator who fails to meet the requirements of ... section 1166... or section 1021(e)(1) or who fails or refuses to comply with a request for any information which such administrator is required by this subchapter to furnish. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1)(A) and (B). Section 1166 of ERISA applies to group health plans, not disability income plans. Section 1021(e)(1) of ERISA references transfers by employee pension benefit plans to health benefits accounts. Accordingly, neither section has any applicability to this case. Except as discussed more fully below, Moffett does not identify what information required by this subchapter he requested and did not receive. Thus, he has failed to state a claim under section 1132(a)(1)(A). 15 Section 1132(a)(1)(B) of ERISA permits a participant or beneficiary to bring an action 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. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). ERISA further permits an action by a participant or beneficiary to obtain other appropriate equitable relief. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)(B). 16 Assuming Moffett seeks relief under section 1132(a)(1)(B), the conduct Moffett alleges is redressable under section 1132 consisted of defendants': 17
18 B. ... fail[ure] to provide adequate notice in writing ... setting forth the specific reasons for (the) denial, written in a manner reasonably calculated to be understood by the participant as required by 29 USC § 1133(1); 19 C. ... fail[ure] to provide opportunity... for a full and fair review ... of the decision denying the claim, as required by 29 USC § 1133(2); and 20 D. ... fail[ure] to provide Plaintiff with information as required by ERISA. 21 A.C. at § C-1, ¶ 3, App. 4 at 20. Thus, the only acts Moffett alleges violate section 1132(a)(1)(B) are purported violations of sections 1133(1) and (2). 22 We first note that Moffett's first and fourth claims, alleging failure to provide written notice and failure to provide information as required by ERISA, are vague and conclusory. We have held that an ERISA claim based upon an alleged failure to provide information is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) where the plaintiff fails to identify what information he alleges was wrongfully withheld. See Maez v. Mountain States Tel. and Tel., Inc., 54 F.3d 1488, 1507 (10th Cir.1995). 23 Additionally, and more fundamentally, when Moffett accuses the defendants of failing to provide him with information about the reasons for the denial of his benefits and/or any avenues for review of that denial, he inadequately alleges a violation of section 1133 because that section requires every employee benefit plan  to provide adequate notice in writing to any participant or beneficiary whose claim for benefits under the plan has been denied, setting forth the specific reasons for such denial, written in a manner calculated to be understood by the participant. 29 U.S.C. § 1133(1). Similarly, the plan must afford a reasonable opportunity to any participant whose claims for benefits has been denied for a full and fair review by the appropriate named fiduciary of the decision denying the claim. 29 U.S.C. § 1133(2). Moffett makes no allegations about the Plan 's failure to provide notice or other information. He alleges that the Halliburton defendants failed in that regard. However, an alleged failure by the employer or the plan administrator to provide such notice and/or opportunity is not a violation of section 1133. See Walter v. Int'l Ass'n. of Machs. Pension Fund, 949 F.2d 310, 315 (10th Cir.1991). 24 In his second group of claims, Moffett's amended complaint charged that Defendants were under and owed Plaintiff a fiduciary duty pursuant to the provisions of ERISA 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. A.C. § C-3, ¶ 2, App. 4 at 21. He further alleges that Defendants breached the fiduciary duty owed pursuant to ERISA and to Plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 30. Those conclusory allegations fail to establish the basis for an alleged breach of fiduciary duties. 4 25 Moffett's third group of claims is entitled waiver, estoppel and attorney fees and costs. As indicated, he does not pursue these on appeal. 26 In addition to those three groups of claims, Moffett alleges general violations of ERISA as follows: failure to provide written notice and information required pursuant to ERISA ... at the time of commencement of coverage under the Plan, id. at § B, ¶ 3, App. 4 at 4, as well as breach of fiduciary obligations owed pursuant to ERISA ... at the time of commencement of coverage under the Plan. Id. at ¶ 3a. He further asserts that the Halliburton defendants failed to inform him that they had entered into the Buy-Out Agreement, but he does not articulate how that violated ERISA. He also alleges that, following the execution of the Buy-Out Agreement, the Halliburton defendants did not provide ... the name and address of the `Plan Administrator,' and/or... other information required pursuant to ERISA. Id. at ¶ 21-6, App. 4 at 10. These vague and general allegations fail to state a claim for a violation of ERISA. 27 Moffett also lists the following series of alleged statutory violations: following the execution of the Claim Reserve Buy Out Agreement, he claims the Halliburton defendants failed to provide the protections afforded pursuant to ERISA and the Plan, including but not limited to the protections and guarantees afforded by 29 U.S.C. § 1021-1024, 1104, 1105, 1109, 1132 and 1133. Id. at ¶ 50-1, App. 4 at 17. He further alleges that defendants failed to furnish plan beneficiaries and participants with a written plan or summary thereof; with information regarding modifications of and to the plan or summary; and required written notice. Id. at ¶ 52(A)-(C), App. 4 at 18. He repeats his allegations of failure to provide him with the reasons for the denial of his benefits and any review mechanism thereof. Id. at ¶ 52(D)-(E). Moffett also alleges that defendants committed some error and/or violation in entering into the Buy-Out Agreement, but he alleges no provision of ERISA allegedly violated thereby. Id. at ¶ 52(F). 28 Sections 1021-24 of ERISA set forth reporting and disclosure requirements for plan administrators, see 29 U.S.C. §§ 1022-24, and include the obligation to provide participants with summary plan descriptions, including descriptions of any changes and modifications of the plan. Moffett concedes that he did not notify defendants that he had never received any such information, nor did he allege that he ever asked for it prior to this lawsuit. At oral argument on appeal, Moffett conceded that the only remedy he seeks for these violations is a declaratory judgment directing defendants to provide information to Moffett and all other plan participants. Since he failed to seek such a declaratory judgment before the district court, however, we will not consider his request on appeal. 29 Sections 1104, 1105 and 1109 provide for remedies for a breach of fiduciary duty, see 29 U.S.C. §§ 1104-05 and 1109, and we have explained, supra, that Moffett failed to state a claim for breach of any fiduciary duties. We have also explained, supra, that Moffett failed to state a claim for a violation of section 1133 which would implicate the remedial provisions of section 1132. 30 Finally, Moffett seeks a variety of remedies for all of the alleged ERISA violations, but he pursues none which are actually available under ERISA. His complaint requests any relief authorized pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1109 or § 1132, and specifically including equitable and remedial remedies. A.C. at § C-3, ¶ 5, App. 4 at 22. More specifically, he seeks: 31 (a) the maximum penalties allowed pursuant to ERISA, (b) attorney fees, (c) costs and expenses, and, in the event that it is determined that ERISA is inapplicable and/or does not bar other claims, (d) loss of income, loss of property, loss of credit and credit reputation, mental and emotional distress, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and punitive damages, (f) remedies and relief afforded by 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et. seq. for breach of duty by [d]efendants ... including remedial, equitable or other remedies provided for by 29 U.S.C. § 1109 and 1132, and (e) such other damages and relief as may be allowed by law. 32 Id. at § B, ¶ 54, App. 4 at 19. 33 As indicated above, he failed to adequately allege a violation of section 1132(c), which provides for a statutory penalty of $100 per day. With respect to the other, non-statutory remedies he pursues, he did not identify in his complaint what specific equitable relief he desires. 5 To the extent we read his complaint as seeking non-statutory remedies and/or damages, in the form of monetary compensation for economic or other harm suffered because of the delay in his receipt of his benefits, we agree with the district court that those remedies are not available under ERISA. See Great-West Life & Ann. Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 122 S.Ct. 708, 718, 151 L.Ed.2d 635 (2002) ([Section 1132(a)(3)], by its terms, only allows for equitable relief.); Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 148, 105 S.Ct. 3085, 87 L.Ed.2d 96 (1985) ([T]he relevant text of ERISA, the structure of the entire statute, and its legislative history all support the conclusion that in [29 U.S.C. § 1109(a)] Congress did not provide, and did not intend the judiciary to imply, a cause of action for extra-contractual damages caused by improper or untimely processing of benefit claims.); Kerr v. Charles F. Vatterott & Co., 184 F.3d 938, 943 (8th Cir.1999) (The Supreme Court confirmed that section 1132(a)(3) recovery is limited to classic equitable remedies such as injunctive, restitutionary, or mandamus relief, and does not extend to compensatory damages.). 34 We accordingly affirm the district court's grant of the Halliburton defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. We turn now to Moffett's claims against Hartford.