Free Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04—cv—01248-GI\/IS Document 20-2 Filed 10/20/2006 Page1 0f3

Case 1:04—cv—01248-Gl\/IS Document 20-2 Filed 10/20/2006 Page 2 of 3
Westlaw
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Page l
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 624762 (D.Del.)
(Cite as: 2006 WL 624762 (D.Del.))
pursuant to Policy No. 530503)) ._ FN2] That request
Nlotions, Pleadings and Filings was denied on April 20, 2004. (Complaint at 11 6 .)
On April 24, 2004, Plaintiff appealed that decision,
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. and as a result of that appeal, Defendant again denied
benefits on June 28, 2004. (Id. at 111] 7-8.)
United States District Court, Since Plaintiff relies on the policy to
D. Delaware. support her right to insurance coverage, the
Stephanie Lynn FORD, Plaintiff, court may consider that document, even
v. though it was provided by Defendant. See
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF Pension lukvzcfit Gmzrwrrv Corp. in li/Vvizv
AMERICA, Defendant. Cbizsoliduzcd lrm’u.s. hw. 998 F.2d 1192.
N0. Civ.A. 05-105(KAJ). 1196 {3d Cir.1993 l ("[A] court may consider
an undisputedly authentic document that a
March 9, 2006. defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion
Stephanie Lynn Ford, New Castle, DE, pro se. to dismiss if the plaintiffs claims are based
on the document.").
Wggj. Mclivillv, Jr., Stevens & Lee, Wilmington,
DE, for Defendant. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in the
Court of Common Pleas for the State of Delaware,
MEMORANDUM ORDER and Defendant removed the case to this court. (D.I.1.)
As a result of Defendant's denial of benefits, Plaintiff
IQRnQ;3_l)f, J. seeks damages for lost wages, pain and suffering,
mortgage payments, a lost life insurance policy, and
I. INTRODUCTION lost "eligibility To [sic] be rehired for employment
after 17 years of service." (Complaint at li 10.) In her
*1 This case arises from Defendant's denial of long response to this Motion, Plaintiff stated that as a
term disability benefits to Plaintiff] who was involved result of the denial of long term disability benefits,
in an automobile accident. Before me is Defendant's she lost her job. (D.I. 6 at 11 6.) Plaintiff also
Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil specifically seeks $50,000 to compensate for pain,
Procedure 12(b)(6). (Docket Item ["D.I."] 2; the suffering, and mental anguish. (Complaint at il 11.)
"Motion .") For the reasons that follow, the Motion Plaintiff also filed a separate complaint in this court,
will be granted. apparently seeking recovery of long term disability
benefits and alleging discrimination. (Civil Action
II. BACKGROUND No. 05-118, D.I. 1.) The two cases have been
consolidated. (Civil Action No. 05-105, D.I. 13.)
The following background information
is based on Plaintiffs allegations, which are III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
assumed to be true for the purposes of this
12(b)(6) motion. E§d.R.Civ.P, 12gbll6) requires a coturt to accept as
true all material allegations of the complaint. See
On October 28, 2003, Plaintiff was involved in a hit- frzunp linggggg Crrsino Resorts. Im:. v. Mirage
and-run automobile accident and sustained injuries to @gorts Inc., 140 F.3d 478, 483 (3d Cir.l998)
her neck, back, ribs, legs, shoulder, and arm. (D.I. 4, (intemal citation omitted). "A complaint should be
Ex. C at il 11 3-4; the "Complaint.") According to the dismissed only if, after accepting as true all of the
Complaint, on February 24, 2004, Plaintiff applied to facts alleged in the complaint, and drawing all
Defendant for long term disability benefits (id. at il reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor, no relief
5), under a group insurance policy held by Plaintiffs could be granted under any set of facts consistent
employer (see D.I. 4, Ex. A at UASP10001; D.I. 4, with the allegations of the complaint." Id. (internal
Ex. B at UACLO0002 (insurance policy and claim citation omitted). The moving party has the burden of
document showing Plaintiffs application for benefits persuasion. See Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor. lng,
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:04—cv—01248-GI\/IS Document 20-2 Filed 10/20/2006 Page 3 of 3
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Page 2
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 624762 (D.Del.)
(Cite as: 2006 WL 624762 (D.Del.))
926 F.2ql_,1,j-@6, 1409 (3d Cjr;,_1@).
Here, Plaintiff does not expressly state the basis for
IV. DISCUSSION her claims. However, the damages that she requests,
which include lost wages, pain and suffering, and
Defendant argues that the Complaint filed in Civil other consequential damages, are not available tmder
Action 05-105 seeks compensatory damages ERISA. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (setting forth the
consistent with claims for breach of contract, exclusive remedies available under the statute).
negligence, or intentional infliction of emotional Because such damages are consistent with claims for
distress, and that such state-law claims are preempted breach of contract, negligence, or intentional
under the Employment Retirement Income Security infliction of emotional distress, I understand the
Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 I.Z.S.Q_,_§ _____ _,1_Q_Q1_ et seq. (D.I. Complaint to be making one or more of those claims.
3 at 4-6.) Because Plaintiffs claims relate to benefits That interpretation is consistent with Plaintiffs filing
offered as part of her employment (see D.I. 4, Ex. A of a second complaint seeking disability benefits in
at UASP10001; D.I. 4, Ex. B at UACL00002), the Civil Action 05-118. (Civil Action No. 05-118, D.I.
provisions of ERISA apply. See Pi/or Life ins. Co. v. 1.) Therefore, since the Complaint sets forth state-law
Dear/cuux, 481 U.S. 41, 44 107 S.C`t. 1549 95 claims that are preempted under ERISA, I will grant
L.Ed.2d 39 11987) ("ERISA comprehensively Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. FN3
regulates employee welfare benefits plans that,
through the purchase of insurance or otherwise, EN_;In her response to Defendant's Motion,
provide benefits in the event of sickness, accident, Plaintiff requests counsel. (D.I. 6 at 11 11.)
disability, or death.") (citing 2Q_Q.S.C. § 1002g 1 g) For the reasons set forth in the February 24,
(internal quotation marks omitted). 2006 teleconference, and considering the
factors set forth in Tabrrm v. Grace 6 F.3cl
*2 It is beyond dispute that, subject to narrow 147, 155-57 (3d Cir.1993), I will deny
exceptions not applicable here, state laws are Plaintiffs request.
preempted by ERISA if they "relate to any employee
benefit plan," 29 1l.S.(Q`. § 11445a). Pi/ot Life 481 V. CONCLUSION
U.S. at 4;4_;g1j;. Specifically, common law causes of
action for breach of contract, negligence, and Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, it is
intentional infliction of emotional distress which hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to
have a connection with a benefit plan are preempted. Dismiss (D.I.2) is GRANTED. It is further
[rl. at 43-44, 47-48 (holding that a common law ORDERED that Plaintiffs request for counsel (D.I. 6
breach of contract claim is preempted); Prine in RC4 at 11 11) is DENIED.
Corp., 868 1*.2d 631, 635 (3d Cir.l989) (same for
common law breach of contract and intentional Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 624762
infliction of emotional distress); Abmms v. Dear: (D.Del.)
Winer Rrzvrto/rjgu/rgg,,___§@. C ix·*.A.98-3988,4999 W 1;
1,30612. at *1, *4 (IE.I2.Pa. Mar.l1. 1999) (same for Motions, Pleadings and Filings (Back to top)
common law breach of contract and negligence).
Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiff is making such · 1:05cv00105 (Docket) (Feb. 22, 2005)
claims, I must grant Defendant's Motion.
END OF DOCUMENT
Any submission by a pro se litigant enjoys a
particularly liberal review of technical and procedural
matters. _@;rg;___}g, __,,_ 6 F.3c1_1;1;/_,__,153 r1. 2 (3d
Q_ir,,1§)Q§_). District Courts construe pro se
submissions in a manner that allows, to the fullest
extent feasible, for the substance of issues to be
addressed, despite any technical deficiencies in
pleading or presenting claims and defenses. Holley v.
Dep? 0[ I’2>tcrun Affairs, 165 F.3d 244, 247-48 (3d
Cii:1999). Although the court may overlook
informalities, and even apply unarticulated law where
appropriate, only information that has been
communicated to the court can be considered. Id.
© 2006 Thomson/W est. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.