Court Opinion

ID: 9487646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:22:59.710137+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:24.689483
License: Public Domain

*1210HANSEN, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result in this case only because I do not believe that UMR can have it both ways. That is, UMR can not remove the case from state court on the basis that the stated claim was “to recover benefits allegedly owing from an ERISA regulated plan”, and then once in federal court move for summary judgment because an ERISA claim was not stated. Were the question simply whether or not the Vickerys had stated an ERISA claim I would affirm the district court. The removed unamended state court petition for damages contains not a single clue that the insurance plan sued under is an ERISA regulated plan.