U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Addresses Complex ERISA Dispute Over Joint and Survivor Benefits on Motions to Dismiss

Published July 22, 2019 by The Pellegrin Firm

In a July 17, 2019, decision, Judge Lance Africk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled on several motions to dismiss filed by defendants The Building Trades United Pension Trust Fund and the Pension Fund’s Board of Trustees. The case is Theriot v. Building Trades United Pension Trust Fund, No. CV 18-10250, 2019 WL 3220106 (E.D. La. July 17, 2019). The court dismissed most of the plaintiff’s claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted.

The plaintiff is Deborah Theriot, who is administrator of Audrey Hamann’s estate. Audrey’s husband died and she became entitled to benefits due to the terms of his pension plan. Audrey elected to receive a lump sum benefit amount in writing, but then Audrey died before the pension fund sent her the check. The pension fund alleged she was not due the lump sum or any other benefits because she had passed.

Deborah Theriot, Audrey’s daughter and the administrator of her estate, filed suit to recover the benefits. Judge Africk seemed sympathetic to plaintiff’s argument, noting that the insurer received notice of the request for lump sum benefits before Audrey’s death and little in the plan documents supported the claims administrator’s reasoning.

However, the court found Theriot did not exhaust administrative remedies on the benefit claim as required by ERISA. The plan gave 60 days from an adverse benefit decision to appeal, and Theriot did not officially appeal for eight months. Therefore, the claim for unpaid benefits was dismissed with prejudice and may not be brought again. The court found most of the plaintiff’s other claims – centered on procedural violations of ERISA and equitable remedies – to be disguised claims for benefits and dismissed those as well. The only claim still standing is based on 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c) seeking penalties for failure to produce requested information under ERISA.

This case is a lesson in the extremely strict and unforgiving deadlines in ERISA cases.