Hansen v. Harper Excavating, Inc.
641 F.3d 1216
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Hansen worked for Harper Excavating from Nov 2003 to Apr 2004; Harper allegedly enrolled him in an ERISA plan but failed to submit enrollment properly.
- Harper deducted premiums from Hansen’s pay but BCBS later rejected coverage as untimely; Hansen remained uninsured after enrollment paperwork issues.
- Hansen sued Harper in federal court under ERISA and obtained liability summary judgment; damages and fees were awarded in 2008.
- During discovery, Hansen learned of Harper’s misrepresentations; he filed a Utah state-law claim (fraud, misrepresentation, conversion, contract) in state court.
- Harper removed the state case to federal court; district court denied remand and dismissed on res judicata grounds.
- Court held Hansen’s state-law claims were not completely preempted by ERISA and remand to state court was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Hansen's state claims completely preempted by ERISA? | Hansen contends ERISA §502(a) completely preempts state claims. | Harper argues complete preemption applies because claims relate to ERISA plan benefits. | Not completely preempted; ERISA §502(a) does not cover Hansen's claims. |
| When is ERISA standing determined for removal purposes? | Standing exists if at filing Hansen was a participant/beneficiary. | Standing should be assessed at time of removal (or merits) based on plan status. | ERISA standing is assessed as of the filing of the complaint. |
| Does a 'but-for' ERISA standing exception apply in the Tenth Circuit? | But-for standing would allow Hansen to be treated as an ERISA participant. | But-for standing is recognized in other circuits but not in the Tenth Circuit. | There is no but-for ERISA standing in the Tenth Circuit. |
| Can judicial estoppel create federal subject-matter jurisdiction here? | Hansen's prior ERISA position could estop Harper from challenging standing. | Judicial estoppel should bar inconsistent standing arguments to create jurisdiction. | Judicial estoppel cannot manufacture jurisdiction; remand is proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (1987) (complete preemption recognized under ERISA §502(a))
- Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (2004) (scope of complete preemption under ERISA)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (1983) (limits complete preemption to §502(a))
- Felix v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 387 F.3d 1146 (2004) (standing assessed at time of filing; not but-for)
- Chastain v. AT&T, 558 F.3d 1177 (2010) (rejects but-for ERISA standing in the Tenth Circuit)
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (1989) (definition of participant; standing categories)
- Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489 (1996) (fiduciary-duty context; not ERISA standing)