Benjamin v. AIG Insurance
2012 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 35
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2012Background
- Williams disappeared while piloting a plane in 1994; RW was named sole beneficiary of a group life policy with Esso.
- Esso refused to provide claim forms and related documents to RW’s court-appointed guardian, Patricia Benjamin, for years after disappearance.
- guardian Benjamin appointed in 2002; AIG paid two checks to RW’s estate in 2004 and later paid similar amounts to RW’s benefit.
- RW’s guardian filed suit in 2004 seeking policy proceeds, asserting breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and conspiracy to defraud.
- District Court remanded after removal; ERISA preemption cited by the court as grounds for dismissal, later affirmed by Superior Court.
- This appeal followed, with issues waived due to failure to raise them below and on appeal; court affirmatively dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ERISA preemption bars the claims | Benjamin argues ERISA does not preempt since Esso isn’t an ERISA-governed entity and claims aren’t ERISA-covered. | Esso contends ERISA preempts all claims regarding the life policy. | Waived; claim preemption treated but arguments not preserved. |
| Whether the complaint states a claim colored by the covenant of good faith and fair dealing | Benjamin asserts breach of implied covenant by mismanaging claims materials and denial of benefits. | Esso argues preemption and lack of ERISA applicability defeat the claim. | Dismissal affirmed; preemption and waiver concerns control, no valid state-law claim stated. |
| Whether the conspiracy to defraud claim is preempted | Benjamin alleges defendants refused to provide claim documents to RW, constituting fraud. | ERISA preemption applies to such fiduciary or related claims. | Waived; ERISA preemption arguments not properly preserved. |
| Whether the trial judge should be reassigned on remand | Benjamin requests recusal for bias. | No proper motion under 4 V.I.C. § 284, § 286 filed; allegations insufficient. | Waived; no basis for reassignment; arguments rejected on merits. |
| Whether standing or guardianship affects appellate jurisdiction | RW’s age and guardianship status could affect standing. | Standing is a waivable claims-processing rule, not jurisdictional here. | Standing deemed non-jjurisdictional; appellant waived standing challenge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arlington Funding Servs., Inc. v. Geigel, 51 V.I. 118 (V.I. 2009) (standing discussed as non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule; waiver possible)
- Vazquez v. Vazquez, 54 V.I. 485 (V.I. 2010) (standing/mootness as non-jurisdictional; waiver rule applied)
- Farrell v. People, 54 V.I. 600 (V.I. 2011) (appeal jurisdiction not limited to aggrieved parties; waiver principles discussed)
- In re Guardianship of Smith, 54 V.I. 517 (V.I. 2010) (standing/waiver; guardianship termination concepts)
- Bernhardt v. Bernhardt, 51 V.I. 341 (V.I. 2009) (recusal and bias claims require clear probability of bias)
- Martinez v. Colombian Emeralds, Inc., 51 V.I. 174 (V.I. 2009) (jurisdiction and final-appeal considerations for dismissals)
- Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church, 375 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2004) (consideration of documents outside pleadings in 12(b)(6)-type motions)
- Mele v. Fed’l Reserve Bank of N.Y., 359 F.3d 251 (3d Cir. 2004) (motion for judgment on the pleadings standard)
- Rosenau v. Unifund Corp., 539 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2008) (de novo review standard for judgments on the pleadings)
- Gereau v. Gereau, 502 F.2d 928 (3d Cir. 1974) (clear-probability standard for recusal)