Court Opinion

ID: 9375103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 21:01:11.514556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:55.970030
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2406      Doc: 28        Filed: 02/23/2023       Pg: 1 of 11

                                             PUBLISHED

                                 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                     FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-2406

        KATHY HAYES,

                                         Plaintiff – Appellant,

                            v.

        PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,

                                         Defendant – Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Greenville. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (6:19-cv-00495-JD)

        Argued: December 8, 2022                                      Decided: February 23, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and Henry E. HUDSON, Senior
        United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

        Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Heytens wrote the opinion, in which Judge
        Wilkinson and Judge Hudson joined.

        ARGUED: M. Leila Louzri, FOSTER LAW FIRM, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina, for
        Appellant. Ian H. Morrison, SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee.
        ON BRIEF: Nathaniel W. Bax, FOSTER LAW FIRM, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina,
        for Appellant.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2406       Doc: 28         Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 11

        TOBY HEYTENS, Circuit Judge:

               When Anthony Hayes’ employment ended, so did his employer-provided life

        insurance. Hayes then missed the deadline to convert his coverage to an individual policy.

        After Hayes died, his surviving spouse filed suit seeking relief under a provision of the

        Employee Retirement Income Security Act allowing “a participant or beneficiary” of an

        employee benefit plan “to recover benefits due” “under the terms of [the] plan.” 29 U.S.C.

        § 1132(a)(1)(B). We agree with the district court that the plan administrator did not abuse

        its discretion in concluding Hayes was not entitled to benefits under the terms of the plan.

        We thus affirm.

                                                         I.

               Hayes worked as an environmental engineer for DSM North America, Inc., and had

        an employer-provided life insurance policy with defendant Prudential Insurance Company.

        Prudential was both the insurer and the administrator of the employer-provided benefit

        plan. The plan gave Prudential “the sole discretion to interpret [the plan’s] terms . . . and

        to determine eligibility for benefits.” JA 97.

               In 2015, Hayes lost his job because of medical issues, and his employer-provided

        life insurance coverage ended. The terms of the plan, however, allowed former employees

        to convert employer-provided coverage to an individual policy. To do so, the plan required

        Hayes to initiate the conversion process “by the later of ” 31 days after his employer-

        provided coverage ended or 15 days after receiving “written notice of the conversion

        privilege.” JA 64. The parties agree Hayes’ conversion deadline was December 23, 2015.

                                                         2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2406       Doc: 28         Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 3 of 11

               Unfortunately, Hayes did not contact Prudential about converting his life insurance

        policy until 26 days after the conversion deadline. Hayes’ health continued to deteriorate,

        and he died in June 2016.

               This case arises out of an attempt by Hayes’ surviving spouse—the plaintiff here—

        to collect benefits under Hayes’ employer-provided life insurance policy. Plaintiff

        submitted a request for benefits, which Prudential denied. The claim administrator

        explained Hayes’ employer-provided “coverage terminated on 11/16/15,” and although

        Hayes “was eligible to convert his Group Basic Life Insurance,” “there is no conversion

        policy on file.” JA 144. Plaintiff sought reconsideration from Prudential’s internal appeals

        committee, which confirmed the denial of benefits. Prudential’s letter of reconsideration

        acknowledged that “medical records do support” the conclusion that “Hayes was

        incapacitated due to his medical conditions and symptoms during the time period he had

        to convert his coverage.” JA 177. But, the letter explained, “Prudential is required to

        administer claims made under the plan in strict adherence to the policy provisions.” Id.

               Although Prudential offered another layer of “voluntary” internal review, JA 178,

        plaintiff chose not to pursue it. Instead, plaintiff sued Prudential in federal district court.

        Plaintiff’s single-count complaint requested one form of substantive relief: for the district

        court to “declare, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), that [p]laintiff is entitled to the

        benefits which she seeks under the terms of the plan.” JA 6.

               The parties submitted a joint stipulation of facts and an administrative record, and

        cross-moved for judgment based on those undisputed materials. The district court entered

        judgment for Prudential. The court concluded Prudential “reasonably denied [p]laintiff’s

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2406      Doc: 28          Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 4 of 11

        request for benefits” because “Hayes received timely notice of his conversion rights” and

        “did not convert his life insurance to an individual policy during the [c]onversion [p]eriod.”

        JA 294. The district court also rejected plaintiff’s request to “apply the doctrine of

        equitable tolling and find that [p]laintiff is entitled to the life insurance [b]enefits she

        seeks.” JA 295. The court noted that a different statutory provision—29 U.S.C.

        § 1132(a)(3)—“provides that plan beneficiaries can seek, and the [c]ourt can grant, ‘other

        appropriate equitable relief.’ ” Id. But the court emphasized plaintiff had not sued under

        that provision, “never sought leave to amend her [c]omplaint[,] and in fact ha[d] stipulated

        that her claim involves only a claim for benefits pursuant to § 1132(a)(1)(B).” Id.

               Because the plan gave Prudential discretion in construing its terms and determining

        eligibility for benefits, we—like the district court—review Prudential’s denial of benefits

        for abuse of discretion. See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 111

        (1989). “The abuse-of-discretion standard is a deferential one and the decision of the plan

        trustees will not be disturbed if it is reasonable, even if we would have come to a different

        conclusion independently.” Garner v. Central States, Se. & Sw. Areas Health & Welfare

        Fund Active Plan, 31 F.4th 854, 858 (4th Cir. 2022) (quotation marks omitted). 1

               1
                 This Court recently clarified two points about judicial review in the ERISA
        context. First, the Court rejected use of “an ERISA-specific quasi-summary-judgment
        procedure,” emphasizing that, “as in any other context, district courts should employ the
        appropriate procedural mechanism for resolving the case before them as defined by the
        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Tekmen v. Reliance Std. Life Ins. Co., 55 F.4th 951,
        959, 961 (4th Cir. 2022). Second, the Court held that if a district court makes any “factual
        findings” in resolving an ERISA dispute, those findings are—as in any other context—
        reviewed only for clear error. Id. at 962 (emphasis omitted).

                                                      4
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2406      Doc: 28          Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 5 of 11

                                                     II.

               ERISA regulates employee benefit plans “by establishing standards of conduct,

        responsibility, and obligation for fiduciaries of [those] plans, and by providing for

        appropriate remedies, sanctions, and ready access to the [f]ederal courts.” 29 U.S.C.

        § 1001(b). The statute reflects an attempt to balance two competing goals—“offer[ing]

        employees enhanced protection for their benefits” without “creat[ing] a system that is so

        complex that administrative costs, or litigation expenses, unduly discourage employers

        from offering welfare benefit plans in the first place.” Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489,

        497 (1996). In service of those aims, ERISA creates a wide range of public and private

        enforcement mechanisms. See generally 29 U.S.C. § 1132.

                                                           A.

               Plaintiff sued exclusively under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), which we will call

        Subsection (a)(1)(B). In relevant part, that provision reads:

                  A civil action may be brought . . . by a . . . beneficiary . . . to recover benefits
                  due . . . under the terms of [the] plan[.]

        29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B).

               Despite postdating the district court’s decision, we conclude Tekmen does not
        require a remand for further proceedings. For one thing, neither party asks us to do so. In
        addition, because the district court decided this case based on stipulated facts, its decision
        can properly be viewed as a grant of summary judgment—a matter we review de novo.
        See Hardwick v. Heyward, 711 F.3d 426, 433 (4th Cir. 2013) (court considering summary
        judgment motion may consider “stipulations”). Finally, Tekmen “express[ed] no view on
        the appropriate procedural mechanism for resolving cases” like this one—those “in which
        review in the district court is for abuse of discretion.” 55 F.4th at 961 n.5. We note,
        however, that the district court may need to revisit its specialized case management order
        for ERISA cases given Tekmen.

                                                      5
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2406      Doc: 28          Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 6 of 11

               Because Subsection (a)(1)(B) allows suits to recover benefits owed under “the terms

        of the plan,” it does not permit “a court to alter those terms.” CIGNA Corp. v. Amara,

        563 U.S. 421, 435–36 (2011). As the Supreme Court has explained, “[t]he statutory

        language speaks of enforcing the terms of the plan, not of changing them.” Id. at 436

        (alterations and quotation marks omitted). Subsection (a)(1)(B) thus does not allow a

        “change, akin to the reform of a contract,” because doing so “seems less like the simple

        enforcement of a contract as written and more like an equitable remedy.” Id.

               The trouble for plaintiff is unfortunate, but simple. As plaintiff admits, Hayes “failed

        to convert his life insurance coverage in the time set forth in the policy.” Hayes Br. 24.

        Awarding benefits would thus require the very step the Supreme Court said

        Subsection (a)(1)(B) does not permit: modifying the plan’s terms to provide a workaround

        to its conversion deadline. See Varity Corp., 516 U.S. at 492, 494–95, 515 (former

        employees who were misled into switching to a less generous plan “could not proceed

        under [Subsection (a)(1)(B)] because they were no longer members of the [ERISA] plan

        and, therefore, had no benefits due . . . under the terms of the plan” (alterations and

        quotation marks omitted)).

               Plaintiff counters she “is not asserting that the plan terms should be rewritten.”

        Hayes Reply Br. 5. Instead, she “is asking the Court to apply the doctrine of equitable

        tolling to allow for an exception to the life insurance conversion deadline set forth in the

        policy” because Hayes was incapacitated during the conversion period. Id. at 6.

               No matter how plaintiff’s argument is characterized, we conclude the plan

        administrator did not abuse its discretion in deciding “the terms of the plan” do not provide

                                                      6
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2406       Doc: 28         Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 7 of 11

        for equitable tolling. CIGNA Corp., 563 U.S. at 435. To be sure, federal courts generally

        apply a “presumption that federal statutes of limitations can be equitably tolled.” Lozano

        v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. 1, 13 (2014) (emphasis added). But that is not because courts

        have freewheeling authority to allow equitable tolling whenever they think it makes sense;

        rather, it reflects a prediction about legislative intent. In short, “Congress is presumed to

        incorporate equitable tolling into federal statutes of limitations because equitable tolling is

        part of the established backdrop of American law.” Id. at 11. For that reason, the Supreme

        Court has emphasized the presumption in favor of equitable tolling applies “only” to time

        periods that “operate as a statute of limitations.” Id. at 13–14; see Arellano v. McDonough,

        143 S. Ct. 543, 548 (2023) (quoting Lozano for the proposition that the presumption in

        favor of equitable tolling has “only” been applied “to statutes of limitations”).

               The Supreme Court’s decision in Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. 1 (2014)—

        which held equitable tolling cannot extend the one-year period to petition for the return of

        a child under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child

        Abduction—is instructive. At first blush, an international treaty addressing child abduction

        may seem like an odd comparator to ERISA. But much like an ERISA plan, “[a] treaty is

        in its nature a contract,” and “background principle[s]” of statutory interpretation like

        equitable tolling have “no proper role in the interpretation of ” contracts “unless that

        principle is shared by the parties.” Id. at 12 (quotation marks omitted). And here, the

        contract gives the plan administrator—not courts—primacy in interpreting the plan’s

        terms. Cf. Arellano, 143 S. Ct. at 548 n.1 (describing equitable tolling as “a judicial

        doctrine” that “is typically applied by courts”).

                                                      7
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2406       Doc: 28          Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 8 of 11

               As in Lozano, “[i]t does not matter” that Congress enacted a statute—here,

        ERISA—to enable courts to help “implement” the agreement. 572 U.S. at 13. Like the

        legislation implementing the Hague Convention, Subsection (a)(1)(B) neither “address[es]

        the availability of equitable tolling,” “[n]or does it purport to alter the” terms of any ERISA

        plan. Id. For that reason, we are “unwilling to apply equitable tolling principles that would,

        in practice, rewrite the” plan. Id. at 17.

               To be sure, both the Supreme Court and this one have suggested equitable tolling

        may be available for deadlines in ERISA plans involving the time to file a lawsuit or appeal

        the denial of benefits. In Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co., 571 U.S.

        99 (2013), for example, the Supreme Court said “equitable tolling may apply” if a

        participant “has diligently pursued both internal review and judicial review but was

        prevented from filing suit [within the specified period] by extraordinary circumstances.”

        Id. at 114. Similarly, in Gayle v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 401 F.3d 222 (4th Cir. 2005),

        this Court stated equitable tolling may be available to delay the deadlines for pursuing

        internal plan remedies that must be “pursu[ed] and exhaust[ed] . . . before gaining access

        to the federal courts.” Id. at 226. As in Heimeshoff, however, the basis for this conclusion

        was that, under the statutory and regulatory scheme, “internal appeal limitations periods in

        ERISA plans are to be followed just as ordinary statutes of limitations.” Id. (emphasis

        added).

               The life insurance conversion deadline at issue here is not a statute of limitations,

        nor does it operate as one. “Statutes of limitations establish the period of time within which

        a claimant must bring an action.” Heimeshoff, 571 U.S. at 105. “As a general matter, a

                                                      8
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2406       Doc: 28          Filed: 02/23/2023    Pg: 9 of 11

        statute of limitations begins to run when the cause of action accrues—that is, when the

        plaintiff can file suit and obtain relief.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). The reason a plan’s

        internal appeal deadline operates as a statute of limitations (the issue in Gayle) is because

        “the internal review process” is “[t]he first tier of ERISA’s remedial scheme,” which

        requires exhausting a claim to the plan administrator before “judicial review, the second

        tier of ERISA’s remedial scheme.” Id. at 110–11.

               In contrast, no cause of action for benefits accrues when a participant misses a

        conversion deadline. Indeed, a participant whose policy has expired, unconverted, has no

        benefits due under the plan for any later occurrence because that participant lacks coverage.

        For that reason, a conversion deadline is even more removed from a statute of limitations

        than a pre-suit notice period, which the Supreme Court already held is not subject to

        equitable tolling. See Hallstrom v. Tillamook Cnty., 493 U.S. 20, 27 (1989). The Court’s

        rationale for that conclusion is directly on point: Like a pre-suit notice period—and

        “[u]nlike a statute of limitations”—a deadline for converting benefits “is not triggered by

        the violation giving rise to the action.” Id.

               Plaintiff cites various nonbinding decisions for the view that equitable tolling is

        “consistent with the purpose and intent of ERISA.” Hayes Br. 27. But a court’s

        determination that certain relief is consistent with the purpose of a statute does not mean

        the court can necessarily provide it. In addition, plaintiff’s statutory purpose argument only

        tells part of the story. Although “ERISA was enacted to promote the interests of employees

        and their beneficiaries in employee benefit plans,” it does so by “protect[ing] contractually

        defined benefits.” Firestone Tire, 489 U.S. at 113 (quotation marks omitted; emphasis

                                                        9
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2406       Doc: 28         Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 10 of 11

        added). “This focus on the written terms of the plan is the linchpin of a system that is not

        so complex that administrative costs, or litigation expenses, unduly discourage employers

        from offering ERISA plans in the first place.” Heimeshoff, 571 U.S. at 108 (alterations and

        quotation marks omitted). So even if consistency with statutory purpose were sufficient

        justification for a court to employ equitable tolling, there is no clear consistency here. We

        thus hold the district court did not err in concluding plaintiff’s claim under

        Subsection (a)(1)(B) fails as a matter of law. 2

                                                      B.

               As the district court noted, ERISA contains another provision that sometimes allows

        courts to go beyond “enforc[ing] contracts as written.” CIGNA Corp., 563 U.S. at 440. That

        provision is 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), which we will call Subsection (a)(3). Subsection (a)(3)

        permits a plan participant or beneficiary to bring suit “to enjoin any act or practice which

        violates any provision of this subchapter” or “to obtain other appropriate equitable relief [ ]

        to redress such violations.” This language allows district courts to grant “those categories

        of relief that . . . were typically available in equity,” including the ability “to reform

        contracts” by altering “the terms of the plan.” CIGNA Corp., 563 U.S. at 439–40 (quotation

        marks omitted).

               We need not decide whether plaintiff could have obtained relief under

        Subsection (a)(3) because plaintiff did not sue under that provision, never sought leave to

               2
                Despite broadly preempting state laws “relat[ing] to any employee benefit plan,”
        29 U.S.C. § 1144(a), ERISA contains an exception for laws “regulat[ing] insurance,”
        § 1144(b)(2)(A). Because plaintiff does not argue any state law regulating insurance
        permits equitable tolling of the plan’s conversion period, we do not explore the matter.

                                                      10
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2406       Doc: 28         Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 11 of 11

        amend her complaint to add such a claim, and continues to disclaim reliance on any such a

        theory before this Court. We note, however, that plaintiff errs in asserting she could not

        have sought relief under Subsection (a)(3). True, a plaintiff who prevails in a claim for

        benefits under Subsection (a)(1)(B) may not also obtain other relief under Subsection

        (a)(3). See Varity Corp., 516 U.S. at 512–15; Korotynska v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,

        474 F.3d 101, 102–03 (4th Cir. 2006). But Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(3)

        specifically permits pleading “in the alternative,” so nothing would have prevented plaintiff

        from suing under both provisions.

                                               *      *       *

               “Employers have large leeway to design [employee benefit] plans as they see fit,”

        but “once a plan is established, the administrator’s duty is to see that the plan is maintained

        pursuant to that written instrument.” Heimeshoff, 571 U.S. at 108 (alterations and quotation

        marks omitted). Prudential did not abuse its discretion by fulfilling its duty here, and the

        district court correctly resolved the single claim before it based on the agreed-on facts and

        consistent with well-established law. The judgment of the district court is thus

                                                                                         AFFIRMED.

                                                      11