Seafarers' Welfare Plan v. Dixon
| Decision Date | 29 May 1987 |
| Citation | 512 So.2d 53 |
| Parties | SEAFARERS' WELFARE PLAN; Local Unit of Seafarers' International Union of North America; and Seafarers' International Union of North America v. Earline H. DIXON. Earline H. DIXON v. SEAFARERS' WELFARE PLAN; Local Unit of Seafarers' International Union of North America; and Seafarers' International Union of North America. 85-63, 85-128. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
John C. Falkenberry of Falkenberry, Whatley & Heidt, Birmingham, for appellants/cross-appellees.
Raymond A. Pierson, Mobile, for appellee/cross-appellant.
These consolidated appeals arose from separate orders of the Circuit Court of Mobile County granting cross-motions for summary judgment. The defendants appeal from plaintiff's summary judgment as to count one of the complaint (85-63). The plaintiff appeals from summary judgment in favor of the defendants as to count two of the complaint (85-128). We reverse as to count one and affirm as to count two.
The plaintiff, Earline H. Dixon, filed a complaint against Seafarers' Welfare Plan, Local Unit of Seafarers' International Union of North America, and Seafarers' International Union of North America after her claim for benefits and/or insurance proceeds had been denied. The complaint, alleging state common law contract and tort actions, contained two counts. Count one sought recovery for death benefits and/or life insurance proceeds due as a result of the death of James H. Dixon, plaintiff's son. Plaintiff was the designated beneficiary. Count two sought punitive damages for bad faith refusal to pay the claim.
The Seafarers' Welfare Plan ("Welfare Plan" or "Plan") is a multi-employer, labor-management trust fund which is funded solely through employer contributions. The contributions are made pursuant to agreements between various employers and the Seafarers' International Union of North America ("Union"). The Welfare Plan provides medical expense coverage and various benefits, including death benefits, to eligible employees and their dependents and beneficiaries. The Plan is regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.
The Union is an entity wholly separate from the Welfare Plan. It does not regulate or administer the Plan and does not pay any benefits of the kind paid by the Plan.
According to an affidavit in the record, the third named defendant, Local Unit of Seafarers' International Union of North America, is non-existent.
In her brief on appeal,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hendrix v. United Healthcare Ins. Co. of the River Valley
...to" an ERISA plan.’ " (quoting Butero v. Royal Maccabees Life Ins. Co., 174 F.3d 1207, 1215 (11th Cir. 1999) )); Seafarers’ Welfare Plan v. Dixon, 512 So. 2d 53 (Ala. 1987) (holding that causes of action alleging breach of contract and bad-faith failure to pay insurance benefits were preemp......
-
HealthAmerica v. Menton
...Ins. Co., 703 F.Supp. 53 (N.D.Ill.1989); Holmes v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co., 706 F.Supp. 733 (C.D.Cal.1989); Seafarers' Welfare Plan v. Dixon, 512 So.2d 53 (Ala.1987); Davidian v. Southern California Meat Cutters Union & Food Employees Benefit Fund, 859 F.2d 134 (9th Cir.1988); Hood v. Pr......
-
Whitt v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
...claim for benefits." Pilot Life Insurance Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 1549, 1555, 95 L.Ed.2d 39 (1987); Seafarer's Welfare Plan v. Dixon, 512 So.2d 53 (Ala. 1987). The idea of congressional ERISA preemption under the aegis of the "commerce clause" was anticipated by the Eleventh......
-
Gilbert v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co.
...decision not to suggest revisiting the Belasco decision is supported by the fact that the Alabama Supreme Court in Seafarer's Welfare Plan v. Dixon, 512 So.2d 53 (1987), concluded in light of Pilot Life that Alabama's tort of bad faith refusal to pay insurance benefits was preempted by ERIS......