Sanborn–alder v. Cigna Group Ins.

Decision Date15 February 2011
Docket NumberCivil Action No. H–09–0806.
Citation771 F.Supp.2d 713
PartiesErin C. SANBORN–ALDER, Individually and as Independent Executrix of the Estate of Clifford Alder, Plaintiff,v.CIGNA GROUP INSURANCE, Life Insurance Company of North America, CBCA Administrators, Inc., and National Employment Benefit Companies, Inc., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Don D. Ford, III, Attorney at Law, Paul Jason Brower, Ford & Mathiason LLP, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff.Linda P. Wills, Claire Winniford Parsons, Wilson Elser et al., Lionel M. Schooler, Jackson Walker LLP, Christopher Paul Hanslik, Michel Perez, Boyar & Miller PC, Houston, TX, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

MELINDA HARMON, District Judge.

Pending before the Court in the above referenced cause, alleging wrongful denial of insurance benefits, are the following motions: (1) Defendant Life Insurance Company of North America's (LINA's) motion for summary judgment (instrument # 69); (2) Defendant National Employee Benefit Companies, Inc.'s (“NEBCO's”) motion for summary judgment (# 80); (3) NEBCO's motion to dismiss LINA's cross claim (# 82); and (4) LINA's motion for leave to amend cross claims (# 87).

The sole remaining claim 1 in this action is recovery of $400,000 in voluntary life insurance benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 20 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B),2 brought by Plaintiff Erin Sanborn–Alder (Sanborn–Alder), Individually and as independent executrix of the estate of her deceased husband, Clifford L. Alder.

After reviewing the parties submissions and the applicable law, the Court concludes that LINA's motion for summary judgment should be granted and all parties other than Plaintiff and LINA should be dismissed with prejudice for the reasons stated below.

I. Relevant Law

A. Standards of Review1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)

Summary judgment is proper when “the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The movant has the burden to demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The substantive law governing the claims identifies the essential elements and thus indicates which facts are material. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

Where the non-movant bears the burden of proof at trial, the movant need only point to the absence of evidence to support an essential element of the non-movant's case; the movant does not have to support its motion with evidence negating the non-movant's case. Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.1994).

If the movant succeeds, the non-movant must come forward with “evidence such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. The non-movant “must come forward with ‘specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.’ Matsushita Elec. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). “A factual dispute is deemed ‘genuine’ if a reasonable juror could return a verdict for the nonmovant, and a fact is considered ‘material’ if it might affect the outcome of the litigation under the governing substantive law.” Cross v. Cummins Engine Co., 993 F.2d 112, 114 (5th Cir.1993). Summary judgment is proper if the non-movant “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322–23, 106 S.Ct. 2548; Piazza's Seafood World, LLC v. Odom, 448 F.3d 744, 752 (5th Cir.2006). Although the court draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant, the non-movant “cannot defeat summary judgment with conclusory, unsubstantiated assertions, or ‘only a scintilla of evidence.’ Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Center, 476 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir.2007). Conjecture, conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions and speculation are not adequate to satisfy the nonmovant's burden. Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1079 (5th Cir.1994); Ramsey v. Henderson, 286 F.3d 264, 269 (5th Cir.2002). [A] subjective belief of discrimination, however genuine, [may not] be the basis of judicial relief.’ Lawrence v. Univ. of Texas Medical Branch, 163 F.3d 309, 313 (5th Cir.1999), quoting Elliott v. Group Med. & Surgical Serv., 714 F.2d 556, 567 (5th Cir.1983). Nor are pleadings competent summary judgment evidence. Little, 37 F.3d at 1075; Wallace v. Texas Tech. U., 80 F.3d 1042, 1045 (5th Cir.1996).

A district court may not make credibility determinations or weigh evidence when deciding a summary judgment motion. Chevron Phillips, 570 F.3d 606, 612 n. 3 (5th Cir.2009), citing EEOC v. R.J. Gallagher Co., 181 F.3d 645, 652 (5th Cir.1999). Nor does the court have to sift through the record in search of evidence to support opposition to summary judgment. Ragas v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir.1998).

2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

When a district court reviews a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), it must construe the complaint in favor of the plaintiff and take all well-pleaded facts as true. Kane Enterprises v. MacGregor (USA), Inc., 322 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir.2003), citing Campbell v. Wells Fargo Bank, 781 F.2d 440, 442 (5th Cir.1986).

“While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, ... a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do ....” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964–65, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (citations omitted). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 1965, citing 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235–236 (3d ed.2004) ([T]he pleading must contain something more ... than ... a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action”). Twombly jettisoned the minimum notice pleading requirement of Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 ... (1957) [“a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief”], and instead required that a complaint allege enough facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face.” St. Germain v. Howard, 556 F.3d 261, 263 n. 2 (5th Cir.2009), citing In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir.2007) (“To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’), citing Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1974. See also Alpert v. Riley, No. H–04–CV–3774, 2008 WL 304742, *14 (S.D.Tex. Jan. 31, 2008). ‘A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’ Montoya v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 614 F.3d 145, 148 (5th Cir.2010), quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ––– U.S. ––––, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1940, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Dismissal is appropriate when the plaintiff fails to allege ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face’ and therefore fails to ‘raise a right to relief above the speculative level.’ Montoya, 614 F.3d at 148, quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955.

In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1940, the Supreme Court, applying the Twombly plausibility standard to a Bivens claim of unconstitutional discrimination and a defense of qualified immunity for government official, observed that two principles inform the Twombly opinion: (1) “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” ... Rule 8 “does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions.”; and (2) “only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss,” a determination involving “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”

Furthermore, the plaintiff must plead specific facts, not merely conclusory allegations, to avoid dismissal. Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498 (5th Cir.2000) “Dismissal is proper if the complaint lacks an allegation regarding a required element necessary to obtain relief ....” Rios v. City of Del Rio, Texas, 444 F.3d 417, 421 (5th Cir.2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 825, 127 S.Ct. 181, 166 L.Ed.2d 43 (2006).

B. ERISA

ERISA “permits a person denied benefits under an employee benefit plan to challenge that denial in federal court.” Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 108, 128 S.Ct. 2343, 171 L.Ed.2d 299 (2008), citing 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., and 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B).

An ERISA plan administrator performs two tasks in deciding whether to permit or deny a benefit claim: it decides the facts underlying the claim and it construes the terms of the plan. Wade v. Hewlett–Packard Development Co. LP Short Term Disability Plan, 493 F.3d 533, 537 (5th Cir.2007). Its factual determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion, while its construction of the plan's terms is usually reviewed de novo. Id. When the ERISA benefit plan gives the plan administrator discretionary authority to construe the terms of the plan, however, the court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Brown v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • September 27, 2013
    ...of benefits claims without considering the possibility that the latter could preempt the former, see Sanborn–Alder v. Cigna Grp. Ins., 771 F.Supp.2d 713, 715, 719 (S.D.Tex.2011); Sullivan v. AT & T, Inc., Civil Action No. 3–08–CV–1089–M, 2010 WL 905567, at *2, 4–5 (N.D.Tex. Mar. 12, 2010), ......
  • Aaron v. Leday
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • November 5, 2013
    ...courts with jurisdiction to review benefit determinations by fiduciaries or plan administrators."); Sanborn-Alder v. Cigna Grp. Ins., 771 F. Supp. 2d 713, 717 (S.D. Tex. 2011) ("The Fifth Circuit applies a two-step analysis to review discretionary determinations by an ERISA plan administrat......
  • Encompass Office Solutions Inc. v. Ingenix Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • March 31, 2011
    ...2008 WL 2446054, at *10–11 (S.D.Tex. June 17, 2008) (Jack, J.); Sanborn–Alder v. CIGNA Grp. Ins., No. H–09–0806, 771 F.Supp.2d 713, 716–17, 719–24, 2011 WL 643216, at *2, *6–8 (S.D.Tex. Feb. 15, 2011) (Harmon, J.). The court finds persuasive a recent decision by the Southern District of Tex......
  • Callery v. Exxonmobil Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • August 20, 2021
    ... ... Cypress Med. Ctr. Operating Co., Ltd. v. Cigna ... Healthcare , 781 F.3d 182, 194 (5th Cir. 2015) ... Servs., LLC v. UnitedHealthcare ... Ins". Co., Inc. , 2012 WL 5868249, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Nov ... 20, 2012) (\xE2\x80" ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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