Curtis Lee v. Ing Groep, N.V.
829 F.3d 1158
9th Cir.2016Background
- Curtis F. Lee, a former employee, received then had long-term disability benefits terminated under an ERISA-governed plan. ING North America was the plan administrator; ReliaStar was the claims administrator.
- Lee’s counsel sent document requests on February 5, 2010 seeking “all documents relevant” to Lee’s claim and specifically referenced emails; a parallel request to ReliaStar also sought all relevant documents.
- ING North America produced the requested emails on November 9, 2011 and produced the Plan Document on March 11, 2013 (both well after the 30-day period in 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1)).
- Lee sued under ERISA seeking statutory penalties under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1) for the administrator’s failure to timely produce requested documents.
- The district court imposed a $27,475 penalty for failure to produce both the Plan Document and the emails; the Ninth Circuit reviewed the summary-judgment ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lee requested the Plan Document and whether § 1132(c)(1) penalties apply for its late production | Lee argued his February 5, 2010 request (and the parallel ReliaStar request) sought all relevant documents, including the Plan Document, triggering § 1132(c)(1) liability for the administrator’s untimely production | ING argued the letter did not request the Plan Document from the plan administrator and contested liability for late production | Court held Lee requested the Plan Document; affirmed penalty liability for failure to timely produce the Plan Document |
| Whether failure to produce emails (as required by 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(h)(2)(iii)) supports a § 1132(c)(1) penalty | Lee argued the regulation required production of documents (including emails) and thus the administrator’s failure warranted § 1132(c)(1) penalties | ING argued the regulation imposes duties on plans (not plan administrators) and therefore cannot form the basis for penalties against administrators under § 1132(c)(1) | Court held the regulation imposes requirements on plans, not plan administrators; reversed the penalty based on emails and held such regulatory noncompliance cannot support § 1132(c)(1) penalties |
Key Cases Cited
- Sgro v. Danone Waters of N. Am., Inc., 532 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2008) (discussed; prior non-binding dicta on producibility of claims notes under § 1132(c)(1))
- Halo v. Yale Health Plan, Dir. of Benefits & Records Yale Univ., 819 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2016) (held claims-procedure regulations govern plans and do not support § 1132(c)(1) penalties against administrators)
- Medina v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 588 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2009) (same interpretation of regulatory scope and § 1132(c)(1))
- Groves v. Modified Ret. Plan for Hourly Paid Emps. of Johns Manville Corp., 803 F.2d 109 (3d Cir. 1986) (treating plan and administrator duties as distinct for penalty purposes)