770 F. Supp. 2d 1016
D.S.D.2011Background
- Boddicker, a military veteran, worked for Esurance in Sioux Falls until he resigned on November 5, 2007 after extended FMLA leave for PTSD.
- Esurance uses Ceridian Benefits Services to maintain employee addresses; Boddicker's post office box remained listed as his permanent address in Ceridian's records even after he moved to a street address in 2007.
- Esurance mailed COBRA notices to the Ceridian-maintained post office box; Boddicker did not receive these notices because the box was no longer his address and notices may have been undeliverable.
- Esurance previously represented Ceridian as the COBRA administrator to support summary judgment; the court relied on those representations to grant summary judgment on COBRA claim.
- New evidence (2007 Form 5500) indicates Esurance itself was the COBRA plan administrator, contrary to earlier representations.
- The court granted reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(3) finding misrepresentation/fraud by Esurance and denied summary judgment on the COBRA claim, proceeding to bench trial on COBRA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Esurance's misrepresentation supports Rule 60(b) relief | Boddicker asserts Esurance fraud prevented fair presentation. | Esurance contends no fraud; late-breaking evidence not justifying reconsideration. | Rule 60(b)(3) relief granted; misrepresentation found |
| Whether Esurance was the COBRA plan administrator | Evidence shows Esurance was the administrator, not Ceridian. | Ceridian was the administrator; mailing methods satisfied COBRA requirements. | Material fact unresolved; summary judgment denied on COBRA |
| Whether COBRA notice was provided by a means reasonably calculated to reach the recipient | Notice should have been sent to the street address; post office box was not valid. | Notice mailed to last known address in Ceridian system suffices. | Genuine issue of material fact remains; summary judgment denied |
| Whether damages under ERISA § 1132(c)(1) are appropriate | Damages may be awarded for failure to provide notice. | Damages arguments not considered originally; may be raised later. | Damages issues reserved for trial; not resolved on summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Crotty v. Dakotacare Admin. Servs., Inc., 455 F.3d 828 (8th Cir. 2006) (COBRA notice duties; administrator must notify)
- United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930 (8th Cir. 2006) (fraud standards; clear and convincing evidence)
- Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992 (8th Cir. 2001) (Rule 60(b) relief standard; exceptional circumstances)
- Brooks v. Ferguson-Florissant Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 1997) (exceptional circumstances for Rule 60(b) movants)
- Starr v. Metro Sys., Inc., 461 F.3d 1036 (8th Cir. 2006) (ERISA damages discretion; penalties for notice failures)
- Chesnut v. Montgomery, 307 F.3d 698 (8th Cir. 2002) (COBRA notice and damages considerations)
- Delcastillo v. Odyssey Resource Mgmt., Inc., 431 F.3d 1124 (8th Cir. 2005) (ERISA penalties; scope of § 1132(c)(1))
- Kerr v. Charles F. Vatterott & Co., 184 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 1999) (considerations in awarding COBRA penalties)