Gelardi v. Pertec Computer Corp.

Decision Date23 May 1985
Docket NumberNo. 84-5821,84-5821
Citation761 F.2d 1323
PartiesJoyce A. GELARDI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PERTEC COMPUTER CORPORATION, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Herbert A. Holmes, Jr., Glendale, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.

David L. Bacon, Adams, Duque & Hazeltine, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge, and MARQUEZ *, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Joyce Gelardi submitted claims for long-term disability benefits to her employer, Pertec Computer Corporation, under Pertec's Long Term Disability Benefit Plan (Plan), a self-funded employee welfare benefit plan within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 [ERISA]. See 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1002(1) (1982). Self Insurance Programs, a separate corporation hired by Pertec to administer the Plan, initially denied the benefits. Gelardi appealed the denial to the Pertec Employee Benefits Committee (Committee), to which the Plan Administrator had delegated authority to finally review denied claims. The Committee also denied the claim. Gelardi then brought this suit under ERISA against Pertec and Self for benefits and damages. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ground that Gelardi must sue either the Plan or the fiduciary and Pertec and Self were neither. Gelardi appeals. Review is de novo. Lojek v. Thomas, 716 F.2d 675, 677 (9th Cir.1983).

The only causes of action Gelardi has are those provided by ERISA. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1144(a). ERISA permits suits to recover benefits only against the Plan as an entity, id. Secs. 1132(a)(1)(B); 1132(d), and suits for breach of fiduciary duty only against the fiduciary, id. Secs. 1109(a); 1105(a); see also Thornton v. Evans, 692 F.2d 1064, 1077 (7th Cir.1982). It is self evident that neither defendant is the Plan itself. Gelardi contends Pertec and Self are fiduciaries.

ERISA defines a fiduciary of a Plan as anyone who "exercises any discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting management of such plan or exercises any authority or control respecting management or disposition of its assets ... [or] has any discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration of such plan." 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1002(21)(A). Every employee benefit plan "shall provide for one or more named fiduciaries who ... shall have authority to control and manage the operation and administration of the plan." Id. Sec. 1102(a)(1). The "named fiduciary" is the one "named in the plan instrument." Id. Sec. 1102(a)(2).

Under this definition, for the reasons that follow neither Pertec nor Self is a fiduciary with respect to the handling of claims.

Once Pertec appointed the Plan Administrator and gave him control over the Plan, Pertec was no longer a fiduciary because it retained no discretionary control over the disposition of claims. See Thornton, 692 F.2d at 1077; cf. Russell v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., 722 F.2d 482, 486 n. 5 (9th Cir.1983) (undisputed that employer performed fiduciary functions), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 81, 83 L.Ed.2d 29 (1984). That the Plan Administrator serves at the pleasure of the Board of Directors makes Pertec and the Board fiduciaries and liable as such only with respect to the selection of the Administrator. See 29 C.F.R. Sec. 2509.75-8(D-4), (FR-16). No breach of this fiduciary duty is alleged here. Although Pertec is listed in the Plan Summary as the Plan Fiduciary, the Plan itself contradicts the Summary and explicitly states it controls when in conflict with the Summary.

Although employees of Pertec serve on the Employee Benefits Committee and the Committee has a fiduciary responsibility in determining claims, this does not make the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
178 cases
  • Carducci v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • March 4, 2003
    ...under this subchapter. Jass v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., 88 F.3d 1482, 1490 (7th Cir.1996) (citing Gelardi v. Pertec Computer Corp., 761 F.2d 1323, 1324-25 (9th Cir.1985)) (emphasis added); see also Guiles v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., No. 00-5029, 2002 WL 229696 (E.D.Pa. Feb.13, ......
  • Useden v. Acker
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • March 29, 1989
    ...under ERISA, if that discretion is limited by a pre-existing framework of policies, practices and procedures. Gelardi v. Pertec Computer Corp., 761 F.2d 1323, 1325 (9th Cir.1985); Munoz v. Prudential Insurance Co., 633 F.Supp. 564, 568 (D.Colo.1986); 29 C.F.R. § 2509.75-8 11 The terms of th......
  • Arizona State Carpenters Pension Trust Fund v. Citibank (Arizona)
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • September 27, 1996
    ...Board of Directors designated "responsibility for carrying out all phases of the Administration of the Plan"); Gelardi v. Pertec Computer Corp., 761 F.2d 1323, 1325 (9th Cir.1985) (once employer appointed plan administrator and gave it control over benefit plan, employer was no longer The A......
  • Capital Mercury Shirt v. EMPLOYERS REINSURANCE
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas
    • October 1, 1990
    ...General Information (5). Thus Capital occupies in this instance two roles, i.e. employer and ERISA fiduciary. Gelardi v. Pertec Computer Corp., 761 F.2d 1323 (9th Cir.1985). Section 1132(a)(3) allows a civil action to be brought by a fiduciary "(A) to enjoin any act or practice which violat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • ERISA Newsletter - 4 th Quarter, 2011 - Volume 2, Number 4
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • December 23, 2011
    ...where a plan committee comprised of company officers was responsible for managing plan assets); Gelardi v. Pertec Computer Corp., 761 F.2d 1323, 1325 (9th Cir. 1985) overruled on other grounds, Cyr v. Reliance Std. Life Ins. Co., 642 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) ("ERISA anticipates that ......
  • Fiduciary Or Not Fiduciary? That Is A Difficult Question
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • December 23, 2011
    ...where a plan committee comprised of company officers was responsible for managing plan assets); Gelardi v. Pertec Computer Corp., 761 F.2d 1323, 1325 (9th Cir. 1985) overruled on other grounds, Cyr v. Reliance Std. Life Ins. Co., 642 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) ("ERISA anticipates that ......
1 books & journal articles
  • Liability of Fiduciaries Under Erisa
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 21-2, February 1992
    • Invalid date
    ...F.Supp. 550, 555-57 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (employer exercised discretion terminating plan). 15. See, e.g., Gelardi v. Pertec Computer Corp., 761 F.2d 1323, 1325 (9th Cir. 1985) (employer which appointed plan administrator was fiduciary for that purpose, but not with respect to plan administration......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT