928 F. Supp. 2d 934
S.D. Ohio2013Background
- Harrison, an employee of National City, seeks ERISA benefits under the Plan after National City was acquired by PNC Group.
- The Plan is administered by the Committee, with PNC Financial Services named as Plan Administrator in some pleadings.
- Harrison was told in 2009 he was eligible for Plan benefits, while the 2008–era Plan defined eligibility by grade level.
- Harrison timely claimed benefits in 2010; his claim was initially denied by PNC Group and later denied by PNC Financial Services.
- Harrison asserted five ERISA claims, added the Plan as a defendant, and moved for relief including access to documents and equitable relief.
- The Court grants leave to amend to name the Committee as a party and requires a complete administrative record for later motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PNC Group and PNC Financial Services may be sued for benefits under ERISA. | Harrison contends both are proper plan defendants due to control over administration. | Defendants argue the Plan is the proper defendant, not the employer or administrator. | PNC Group and PNC Financial Services remain proper defendants. |
| Whether Harrison states a valid breach of fiduciary duty claim under ERISA. | Harrison asserts mismanagement and improper handling of documents and decisions. | Defendants argue top-hat status and failure to plead injuries; claim inadequately pleaded under 1132(a)(2)/(3). | Count Two is dismissed; fiduciary-duty claim fails as pleaded. |
| Whether attorney’s fees and costs may be awarded (Count Three). | If Harrison prevails, fees should be awarded under 1132(g)(1). | No fee entitlement unless claims succeed; arguments depend on others. | Count Three survives pending outcome on the merits. |
| Whether Harrison can pursue a claim for failure to produce plan documents (Count Four). | Defendants refused to provide documents; failure to supply is actionable. | Only the Plan Administrator may be liable; misnaming as to who is administrator. | Count Four survives with leave to amend to name the Committee as administrator. |
| Whether Harrison's claim of failure to consider all information (Count Five) is properly analyzed under ERISA procedures. | alleges failure to conduct full and fair review under 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(h)(2). | Claim should be under § 1133, not § 1132(c); miscaptioned and potentially duplicative. | Count Five survives; analyzed under 29 U.S.C. § 1133. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daniel v. Eaton Corp., 839 F.2d 263 (6th Cir. 1988) (proper defendant is party that controls plan administration)
- Little v. UNUMProvident Corp., 196 F. Supp. 2d 659 (S.D. Ohio 2002) (employer shown to control denial may be proper defendant)
- Caldwell v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., 835 F. Supp. 2d 510 (S.D. Ohio 2011) (precludes dismissal where potential fees may render employer liable)
- Riverview Health Institute LLC v. Medical Mutual of Ohio, 601 F.3d 505 (6th Cir. 2010) (plan administrator bears responsibility if it controls administration)
- Hill v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich., 409 F.3d 710 (6th Cir. 2005) (injury remedied by equitable relief may allow §1132(a)(3) action)
- Wilkins v. Baptist Healthcare Sys., Inc., 150 F.3d 609 (6th Cir. 1998) (distinguishes remedies under §1132(a)(2) vs §1132(a)(3))
- Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489 (U.S. 1996) (equitable relief when plan misled beneficiaries)
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (U.S. 1989) (provides standard of review for benefit determinations)