Clark v. Unum Life Insurance of America
799 F. Supp. 2d 527
| D. Maryland | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Helene Clarke seeks ERISA benefits and fees from Unum Life Insurance and Pearson's LTD plan after denial of long-term disability benefits.
- Unum served as claims administrator and insurer; plaintiff's LTD claim was terminated after re-evaluation in 2009.
- Plaintiff moved to compel discovery seeking administrative records, claims review process details, compensation structures, and statistical data from consulting physicians.
- Defendants objected on privacy, attorney-client privilege, and the ERISA history of no extra-record discovery, arguing discovery beyond the administrative record is unavailable.
- Court determined extra-record discovery may be allowed in ERISA when a conflict of interest is proven to influence the decision, and ordered supplemental memoranda pending further ruling.
- Judge denied most discovery but held in abeyance the portion necessary to determine the influence of the conflict and directed supplemental briefs on sufficiency of the administrative record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Glenn permits extra-record discovery in ERISA cases. | Glenn creates an exception for discovery to assess conflict. | General rule restricts ERISA discovery to the administrative record; no extra-record discovery. | Glenn creates an exception allowing limited extra-record discovery to assess conflict. |
| Scope of extra-record discovery in this case to assess the conflict’s influence. | Discovery should include information beyond the record to gauge bias impact. | Administrative record suffices to evaluate conflict in this case. | Court will assess sufficiency of the record first; discovery may be allowed if needed to determine conflict influence. |
| Attorney's fees under Rule 37(a)(5) for the motion to compel discovery. | Defendant should pay plaintiff's fees due to non-cooperation. | Discovery rule history supports no fee shift; issues are substantial and justified. | Attorney's fees denied; actions substantially justified in light of unsettled Glenn effect. |
| Whether the documents claimed as attorney-client privileged are properly privileged under fiduciary exception. | Fiduciary exception renders communications non-privileged. | Communications are privileged; fiduciary exception not shown to apply to these documents. | Documents protected by attorney-client privilege; fiduciary exception not shown to apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bernstein v. CapitalCare, Inc., 70 F.3d 783 (4th Cir.1995) (standard for review of plan administrator decisions; administrative record focus)
- Quesinberry v. Life Ins. Co. of North America, 987 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir.1993) (limits on consideration of outside evidence in ERISA review)
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105 (2008) (conflict of interest as a factor in reviewing benefits decisions)
- Champion v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc., 550 F.3d 353 (4th Cir.2008) (recognition of Glenn's relevance to conflict in ERISA claims)
- Vaughan v. Celanese Americas Corp., 339 Fed.Appx. 320 (4th Cir.2009) (recognition of post-Glenn conflict considerations)
- Spry v. Eaton Corp. Long Term Disability Plan, 326 Fed.Appx. 674 (4th Cir.2009) (discovery considerations relating to conflict and evidence in ERISA)