Bunger v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America
231 F. Supp. 3d 865
W.D. Wash.2017Background
- Plaintiff Chris Bunger sued under ERISA (29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1)) seeking disability benefits; court previously remanded to insurer Unum for further administrative development because the record was insufficient to decide disability.
- The district court found Unum’s file showed concern about lack of diagnostic testing but Unum had not informed Bunger what additional testing it required.
- Bunger moved for attorney’s fees and costs under § 1132(g)(1), requesting $75,100 in fees and $743.48 in costs; Unum opposed the motion.
- The court applied the Supreme Court’s Hardt standard (fees permitted when plaintiff achieved “some degree of success on the merits”) and Ninth Circuit Hummell factors to decide whether to award fees.
- The court concluded that the remand ordered (with instructions that Unum tell Bunger what testing it required) constituted “some degree of success,” and that the Hummell factors overall favored awarding fees.
- The court awarded $72,500 in attorney’s fees (after a $2,600 deduction for time spent on an untimely proposed order) and $743.48 in costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a remand to the plan administrator qualifies as "some degree of success on the merits" under Hardt | Remand is sufficient because it gives plaintiff another opportunity and is a meaningful benefit | Remand alone is only procedural and not enough to warrant fees | Remand with instructions to identify needed testing constituted sufficient success under Hardt |
| Whether Hummell factors justify fee award | Factors (ability to pay, deterrence, relative merits) favor fees; Unum acted improperly by not requiring testing | Unum denied bad faith, argued deterrence and other factors do not favor fees | Hummell balancing: no bad faith found, but ability to pay, deterrence, and relative merits favor awarding fees |
| Proper method and amount for calculating reasonable fees | Counsel submitted hours and $500/hr for lead counsel; requested $75,100 | Unum did not contest $500/hr but challenged some billed time | Used lodestar approach; deemed $500/hr reasonable; deducted $2,600 for untimely proposed order; awarded $72,500 fees and $743.48 costs |
| Whether fees should benefit plan participants or involve significant ERISA question | Bunger did not claim classwide or novel ERISA issues | Unum argued lack of broader benefit weighs against fees | Court found this factor neutral and awarded fees nonetheless |
Key Cases Cited
- Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U.S. 242 (fee eligibility requires "some degree of success on the merits")
- Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680 (standard for fee awards related to "some degree of success")
- Gross v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 763 F.3d 73 (remand can constitute sufficient success for fee award)
- Hummell v. S.E. Rykoff & Co., 634 F.2d 446 (nine‑factor balancing framework for ERISA fee awards)
- McElwaine v. U.S. West, Inc., 176 F.3d 1167 (ERISA fee awards ordinarily recoverable absent special circumstances; Hummell application)
- Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942 (fee applicant bears burden to document hours and market rates)
- Barnes v. AT & T Pension Benefit Plan-Nonbargained Program, 963 F. Supp. 2d 950 (district court concluding remand alone can satisfy Hardt)