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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT