ILNews

Court: Company not negligent in trust demise

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a magistrate judge's ruling in favor of a Michigan company on claims that it was negligent in managing an Indiana trust that eventually collapsed.

Magistrate Judge John Paul Godich, of the U.S. District Court Southern District of Indiana's Indianapolis Division, granted summary judgment in favor of Benefit Actuaries on Indiana Funeral Directors Insurance Trust's claims that Benefit violated its fiduciary duty under ERISA, and negligently failed to provide competent advice while managing the trust.

The trust appealed the ruling, Indiana Funeral Directors Insurance Trust, an Indiana trust v. Benefit Actuaries, Incorporated, No. 07-2351, arguing Magistrate Judge Godich erred in granting summary judgment on its claim that Benefit assumed the duty to comply with Michigan law; that Benefit didn't breach its duty to provide competent services as a third-party administrator, insurance broker, and advisor; and the judge erred in finding Benefit didn't breach its duty by failing to advise the trustees about risks or raising stop-loss deductibles and its poor financial situation.

The trust was created in 1972 and administered as a multiple insurance employer welfare arrangement (MEWA) to provide health benefits to funeral home employees. The trustees hired Benefit to serve as the third-party administrator, insurance broker, and advisor.

In the mid-1990s, the trust began to lose money because more claims were filed than the trust had money to cover from its self-funded health plan. The trust maintained stop-loss coverage, which would reimburse the trust for a specific amount it paid a participant over the deductible.

When financial troubles were evident, Benefit suggested the trust switch to a fully insured plan through an insurance provider, but the trust refused because it would raise the premiums substantially.

In 1997, the trust fired Benefit and later switched to a fully insured plan once it was evident the trust could no longer afford to cover the claims.

Magistrate Judge Godich found in favor of Benefit on the trust's claims and granted the Michigan company summary judgment.

The judge was correct in granting summary judgment on the trust's claim that Benefit assumed the duty to comply with Michigan law because there was nothing in the contract between the two companies that said Benefit would follow Michigan law while administering the Indiana trust, wrote Circuit Judge Terrence Evans. Nor does the trust submit evidence to show Benefit assumed the duty to provide competent actuarial advice.

Benefit didn't breach its duty to provide competent services; the magistrate judge based his decision on the testimony of Benefit's president that until 1997, the trust wasn't on the brink of ruin. Also, there is proof the trustees continuously disregarded Benefit's advice in terms of obtaining more stop-loss coverage or switching to a fully insured plan, wrote Judge Evans.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT