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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT