Hartman v. Dana Holding Corp., Cause No. 1:12–CV–445.

• Decision Date: 21 October 2013
• Docket Number: Cause No. 1:12–CV–445.
• Citation: 978 F.Supp.2d 957
• Parties: Elaine HARTMAN, Plaintiff, v. DANA HOLDING CORPORATION and Weatherhead–UAW Combined Hourly Employee Pension Plan, and its successors, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

978 F.Supp.2d 957

Elaine HARTMAN, Plaintiff,

v.DANA HOLDING CORPORATION and Weatherhead–UAW Combined Hourly Employee Pension Plan, and its successors, Defendants.

Cause No. 1:12–CV–445.

United States District Court,

N.D. Indiana,

Fort Wayne Division.

Oct. 21, 2013.

Douglas D. Powers, Beckman Lawson LLP, Fort Wayne, IN, for Plaintiff.

Kathleen Marie Anderson, Mark D. Scudder, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Fort Wayne, IN, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

ROGER B. COSBEY, United States Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

In April 2011, Plaintiff Elaine Hartman's husband, Robert Hartman, passed away. Mr. Hartman was a former employee of Weatherhead Company (“Weatherhead”), Dana Holding Corporation's (“Dana”) predecessor and, at the time of his death, was receiving a pension from Weatherhead. After he died, Mrs. Hartman contacted Dana to inquire about her survivor annuity and was told her husband had elected against it in 1979. Mrs. Hartman then requested the plan document and summary plan description (“SPD”), together with her husband's election form and the spousal waiver form, in effect in 1979.

Months later, and after a series of unproductive communications with Dana staff, who indicated that they were still looking for the 1979 plan documents, Mrs. Hartman brought this suit against Dana and the Weatherhead–UAW Combined Hourly Employee Pension Plan ¹ under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(A) and (c)(1), better known as § 502(a)(1)(A) and (c)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), seeking statutory penalties against Dana for its failure to provide the documents she requested as well as attorney's fees. ² She further alleges that Dana breached its fiduciary duty to her under 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(2) and 1109 and failed to establish and maintain a reasonable claims procedure as required by 29 U.S.C. § 1133.

Both Mrs. Hartman and Defendants have now moved for summary judgment. (Docket # 22, 24.) Defendants primarily argue that Mrs. Hartman lacks standing to assert her claims and that, even if she did have standing, ERISA does not impose a penalty for failure to provide what they characterize as historical documents. (Docket # 25, 27, 34.) Mrs. Hartman asserts, among other arguments, that she does have standing as a beneficiary with a colorable claim to benefits and that ERISA requires production of the documents she sought if requested, thereby warranting the imposition of a statutory penalty. (Docket # 23, 28, 29.)

For the following reasons, both Mrs. Hartman's and Defendants' motions for summary judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Robert Hartman worked for Weatherhead for over twenty-four years, until his early retirement in 1976. (Hartman Aff. ¶ 3, Exs. 1, 2; see Schlievert Aff. Ex. A at 71, 73.³) As a salaried employee, he participated in the Weatherhead Division Pension Plan for Salaried Employees (the “Plan”). (Holmes Aff. ¶ 3.⁴) In March 1978, Mr. Hartman received a letter from Weatherhead regarding his deferred vested pension, which he could elect to receive once he turned fifty-five years old. (Hartman Aff. Ex. 2; Schlievert Aff. Ex. A at 71.) The letter informed Mr. Hartman of the following:

If you are married at the time your pension is to commence, it will be paid in a form having the effect of a 50% joint and survivor annuity. This means that you will receive a pension for life, but if you die leaving your spouse as a survivor, your spouse will receive, for his or her lifetime, 50% of the pension to which you are entitled.

You may elect to have your pension paid in a form other than that described above. The other forms of payment available to you will be described in detail at the time you elect to have your pension commence.

(Hartman Aff. Ex. 2; Schlievert Aff. Ex. A at 71.)

In 1979, Dana Corporation, which later became Dana Holding Corporation, purchased Weatherhead. (Holmes Aff. ¶ 4.) Dana Limited, a subsidiary of Dana Holding Corporation, now sponsors and administers the Plan. (Holmes Aff. ¶ 4.)

Mr. Hartman turned fifty-five in May 1979 ( see Hartman Aff. Ex. 1), and Weatherhead sent him an election letter with a cover letter stating that a request for early commencement of his pension was enclosed and instructing him to sign the original and return it to Weatherhead (Hartman Aff. Ex. 3; Schlievert Aff. Ex. A at 65). The enclosed election letter provided the following: “I understand that due to early commencement of my Deferred Vested Pension I will receive $96.15 per month on a Life Only Basis. I understand that upon my death no further payments will be made.” (Hartman Aff. Ex. 3; Schlievert Aff. Ex. A at 66.) Mr. Hartman subsequently signed this election form and returned it to Weatherhead. (Hartman Aff. Ex. 3; Schlievert Aff. Ex. A at 59.) Elaine Hartman, Mr. Hartman's wife, maintains that at all times surrounding her husband's election and receipt of his pension benefit, he consistently told her that she would be entitled to a survivor annuity if she survived him.⁵ (Hartman Aff. ¶ 4.) According to Mrs. Hartman, she never signed a spousal waiver. (Hartman Aff. ¶ 10.)

In April 2011, Mr. Hartman passed away. (Hartman Aff. ¶ 5.) Shortly thereafter, Mrs. Hartman contacted Dana to inquire about her survivor annuity and, in response, received a letter dated May 6, 2011, from Dana. (Hartman Aff. ¶¶ 5–6, Ex. 4; Schlievert Aff. Ex. A at 55.) The letter informed Mrs. Hartman that Dana was confirming any benefits she or any other survivors may be entitled to, which could take up to ten days, and instructed her to contact the Dana Service Pension Center with any questions. (Hartman Aff. Ex. 4; Schlievert Aff. Ex. A at 55.) Over three months later, Mrs. Hartman received a second letter from Dana, informing her that her husband had been receiving a single life annuity pension with no further benefits payable after death. (Hartman Aff. Ex. 5; Schlievert Aff. Ex. A at 56.)

On January 16, 2012, Mrs. Hartman and her attorney, Douglas Powers, called the Dana Pension Service Center to inquire about her survivor annuity. (Hartman Aff. ¶ 11(a).) A representative told them that the Dana Pension Service Center would look into the situation and report back, but neither Mrs. Hartman nor Mr. Powers received any response by the end of January. (Hartman Aff. ¶¶ 11(a)-(b).) Throughout the next three months, Mrs. Hartman or her attorney spoke to staff from the Dana Pension Service Center multiple times, inquiring about her survivor annuity and repeatedly requesting her husband's election form, a spousal waiver form, the Plan document, and the SPD in effect when Mr. Hartman made his election in 1979. ( See Hartman Aff. ¶¶ 11(b)-(i); Powers Aff. ¶¶ 3(a)-(d).) Some time after Mr. Powers called the Dana Pension Service Center in April 2012 ( see Hartman Aff. ¶ 11(g)), Mrs. Hartman received from Dana a SPD for all Weatherhead benefits, including the Plan, which contained a handwritten notation stating, “Effective April 15, 1986–April 1, 1989” (Hartman Aff. ¶ 11(h), Ex. 6). This SPD provided that before a participant with a spouse can elect to receive a pension with no reduction for a survivor benefit, “federal law dictates that [the] spouse give written, witnessed consent to that election.” (Hartman Aff. ¶ 11(h), Ex. 6 at 35.) By this point, Mrs. Hartman still had not received her husband's election form, any spousal waiver, or the Plan document or SPD from 1979.

At the beginning of May, after yet another phone call from Mr. Powers, a Dana Pension Service Center representative suggested that Mrs. Hartman send a formal appeal letter to the Dana Appeals Board in Lincolnshire, Illinois, and provided him with an address. (Powers Aff. ¶ 3(e).) Mr. Powers subsequently sent a formal appeal letter via certified mail to the Dana Pension Center Appeals Board in Lincolnshire, Illinois, on May 15, 2012. (Powers Aff. ¶ 3(f); Hartman Aff. Ex. 7.) The return receipt indicates that the letter was received on May 17, 2012. (Powers Aff. ¶ 3(f); Hartman Aff. Ex. 7 at 10.) The appeal letter details Mrs. Hartman's and Mr. Powers's communications with Dana and the Dana Pension Service Center and asserts that Dana's failure to provide 1979 Plan-related documents, including the Plan document, the SPD, Mr. Hartman's election form, and Mrs. Hartman's spousal waiver form, exposed Dana to a per diem statutory penalty. (Hartman Aff. Ex. 7 at 1–4.)

After another unproductive phone call to the Dana Pension Service Center at the end of May inquiring about the appeals process (Powers Aff. ¶ 3(g)), Mr. Powers was informed on June 5, 2012, that there had been a delay in processing the appeal because it should have been sent to Toledo, Ohio, rather than Lincolnshire, Illinois, and that a decision could take as long as ninety days. (Powers Aff. ¶ 3(h).) Later that day, Mr. Powers received a call from Sylvester Holmes, a member of the Dana corporate legal staff, who apologized for the delay in resolving Mrs. Hartman's claims. (Powers Aff. ¶ 3(i).) Mr. Holmes stated that he would email Mr. Hartman's election form to Mr. Powers and, after Mr. Powers reiterated the request for the relevant documents in effect in 1979, represented that Dana could not locate these documents, but would keep looking for them. (Powers Aff. ¶ 3(i); Holmes Aff. ¶ 7.)

On June 6, 2012, Mr. Holmes emailed a copy of Mr. Hartman's election form, without the cover letter, to Mr. Powers. (Powers Aff. ¶ 3(j), Ex. A; Holmes Aff. ¶ 8.) In August, as the ninety-day decision period neared and then passed, Mr. Powers called the Dana Pension Service Center three more times. (Powers Aff. ¶¶ 3(k)-(m).) During the last call, Mr. Powers was advised that Dana had instructed its pension service center not to answer any more questions about Mrs. Hartman's claim. (Powers Aff. ¶ 3(m).)

Shortly thereafter, on September 7, 2012, Mr. Powers called Mr. Holmes, inquiring about the status of Mrs. Hartman's claim. (Powers Aff. ¶ 3(n).) Mr. Holmes stated that he...