Haviland v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 26 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 11–13176. |
| Citation | 876 F.Supp.2d 946 |
| Parties | Merrill HAVILAND, Pillip C. Bammel, Joseph B. Bidwell, Edward Biegas, Jane Bogue, George Cerovsky, John H Corey, George C. Cromer, Donald L. Cross, James J. Dawson, Jane Doe, John Doe, Marilyn J. Garrod, Leroy L. Hebben, Theodore R. Herteg, Hayes M. Hobolith, Jackie L. Hosier, Richard H. Kabel, Nathan E. Koch, Vernon L. Lancaster, John A. Lindell, William J. Ludden, Edward R. Mantel, M. Delores Matthews, George W. McClain, William I. Owens, John R. Peterson, Raymond E. Porter, Irwin B. Reisman, Robert W. Reith, Robert F. Salay, Charles P. Schaefer, Robert D. Schepper, Robert J. Schmandt, Richard Schwaller, Rex M. Shamley, John Smale, Royce L. Snipes, Clifford G. Studaker, John R. Swan, Otto Vosahlik, Earl C. Walters, Elwood Watkins, Eugene R. Weaver, Pauline S. Wells, Minnie H. Worthington, and Joseph B. Wright, Plaintiffs, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jeffrey M. Thomson, Morganroth and Morganroth, Southfield, MI, Sheldon L. Miller, Farmington Hills, MI, for Plaintiffs.
David M. Davis, Hardy, Lewis, Birmingham, MI, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 21) AND DISMISSING CASE
I. Introduction
This case seeks “continuing life insurance benefits.” Plaintiffs are Merrill Haviland and forty-two other individuals 1 who are past employees of General Motors Corporation (GM) and participants in the Life and Disability Plan (Plan). The Plan is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (ERISA). Broadly stated, plaintiffs contend that the Plan guarantees them continuing life insurance benefits when they retired from GM with ten (10) or more years of participation in the Plan. As will be explained, GM, as part of its 2009 reorganization, amended the Plan to reduce the continuing life insurance benefit to $10,000.00 for each retiree-plaintiff.
Plaintiffs have sued defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife), claiming that MetLife, the provider of a life insurance policy to the Plan, sent “notice letters” to plaintiffs in the 1980s or 1990s in which they say MetLife guaranteed the “life time” nature of the benefit to plaintiffs and its failure to honor that benefit is grounds for suit. The First Amended Complaint (FAC) purports to assert six claims under ERISA (Counts I–VI) and five claims under state law (Counts VII–XI), phrased by plaintiffs as follows:
Count I Promissory Estoppel
Count II Breach of the Terms of the Plan
Count III Breach of Fiduciary Duty Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)
Count IV Declaratory Judgment Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)
Count V Unjust Enrichment Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)
Count VI Equitable Restitution Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)
Count VII Conversion
Count VIII Unjust Enrichment
Count IX Breach of Contract
Count X Negligent Misrepresentation
Count XI Violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act
Plaintiffs seek damages, various forms of equitable relief, and demand a jury trial.
MetLife contends that the FAC should be dismissed because (1) plaintiffs' state law claims are in reality claims for ERISA plan benefits and therefore preempted, (2) the FAC fails to state any viable ERISA claim, (3) even if the state law claims are not preempted, they do not state viable claims for relief. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted.
II. Background
Many years ago, GM established the Plan, an ERISA-governed “welfare benefits” plan. The Plan provided for, among other things, a life insurance benefit. Specifically, a review of the various versions of the Plan, the summary plan descriptions (SPDs), and notice letters, which are in the record, display the following:
1. GM is the employer and plan sponsor of the Plan.
2. The Plan provided its salaried employees with certain benefits, including a “basic” or “continuing” life insurance benefit” (hereafter, “continuing life insurance benefit”). The continuing life insurance benefit provided employees with an amount of life insurance while they were employed by GM. After salaried employees retired, the continuing life insurance benefit automatically began to reduce by predetermined amounts until it reached a predetermined...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A.F. v. Providence Health Plan
...non-transferability of benefits].” Decl. Brenna Legaard Ex. 1, at 77, Dkt. 62. 2. Providence cites Haviland v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 876 F.Supp.2d 946 (E.D.Mich.2012), aff'd, 730 F.3d 563 (6th Cir.2013), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1790, 188 L.Ed.2d 758 (2014), for the......
-
A.F. ex rel. Legaard v. Providence Health Plan
...non-transferability of benefits].” Decl. Brenna Legaard Ex. 1, at 77, Dkt. 62.2 Providence cites Haviland v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 876 F.Supp.2d 946 (E.D.Mich.2012), aff'd, 730 F.3d 563 (6th Cir.2013), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1790, 188 L.Ed.2d 758 (2014), for the p......
- Saad v. City of Dearborn Heights, Case No. 11–10103.
-
Hester v. Whatever It Takes
... ... Lincoln ... Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 821 Fed.Appx. 489, 491 (6th ... Cir. 2020); and (2) ... Ky. 2005) (citing ... Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 65-67 ... (1987)). A state ... Haviland v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 876 F.Supp.2d ... 946, 966 (E.D. Mich ... ...