McCurry v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
208 F. Supp. 3d 1251
M.D. Fla.2016Background
- Kelly Kunselman was a Citigroup employee enrolled in Citigroup’s group universal life (GUL) insurance (insured by MetLife). She initially named her then-husband as beneficiary and later attempted to change the GUL beneficiary to her mother (Plaintiff).
- Kunselman successfully updated beneficiaries for other Citigroup benefits, but the GUL beneficiary apparently remained unchanged; after Kunselman’s 2014 death MetLife paid GUL proceeds to the ex-husband, not Plaintiff.
- Plaintiff sued under ERISA, alleging Citigroup breached fiduciary duties by mishandling Kunselman’s GUL beneficiary-change request—either failing to forward the change to MetLife or failing to inform Kunselman that Citigroup would not forward it or that she should contact MetLife directly.
- Citigroup moved to dismiss Count II (breach of fiduciary duty), arguing it had no discretion over beneficiary changes under the GUL policy and that any acts were clerical/ministerial.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion to dismiss; the District Judge adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Citigroup’s motion, finding Plaintiff pleaded a plausible fiduciary-breach claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Citigroup acted as an ERISA fiduciary when handling the beneficiary-change request | Citigroup established, sponsored, administered, and provided beneficiary info for the GUL and thus had authority and control over beneficiary designations and communications | The GUL policy vests MetLife with authority to change beneficiaries and any Citigroup acts were clerical recordkeeping without discretion | Court: Plaintiff plausibly alleged Citigroup exercised fiduciary functions (authority/control over beneficiary info) and that its failures to forward or advise could be fiduciary breaches; denial of motion to dismiss |
| Whether the complaint states a plausible breach of fiduciary duty under Iqbal/Twombly | Alleged failures to forward the request or to inform Kunselman were breaches of the duty to act with care and to disclose material info | Plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory and fail because plan documents (GUL certificate) show Citigroup lacked discretion | Court: Allegations contain sufficient factual matter to be plausible; documents cited do not plainly foreclose recovery at this stage |
| Whether plan documents attached defeat the claim as a matter of law | Even if MetLife had formal authority, Citigroup could still have had discretion to forward information or to advise Kunselman; factual circumstances may show fiduciary duties | The GUL Policy Certificate shows beneficiary changes must be made through MetLife and forecloses Citigroup’s fiduciary status | Court: The certificate does not plainly disprove Plaintiff’s factual allegations; scope and effective versions of plan documents are disputed and require discovery |
| Whether alleged acts (forwarding info, advising participant) are purely ministerial | Such acts can be fiduciary when they involve decisions affecting beneficiaries or communications of material information | These acts are clerical/ministerial and thus non-fiduciary | Court: At pleading stage, allegations of discretion in forwarding or advising are sufficient to allege fiduciary acts; dismissal improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim, not just conclusory allegations)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489 (1996) (ERISA defines fiduciary by function: control and authority over plan)
- Mertens v. Hewitt Assocs., 508 U.S. 248 (1993) (discussion of ERISA fiduciary concepts)
- Hamilton v. Allen-Bradley Co., 244 F.3d 819 (11th Cir. 2001) (duty to provide complete and accurate information; employer’s failure to forward info may breach fiduciary duty)
- Krohn v. Huron Mem’l Hosp., 173 F.3d 542 (6th Cir. 1999) (employer’s duty to send application or clarify participant intentions)
- Ervast v. Flexible Products Co., 346 F.3d 1007 (11th Cir. 2003) (failure-to-inform claim may lie against an ERISA administrator)
- Cotton v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 402 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2005) (fiduciary status is not all-or-nothing; limited to activities where discretion exercised)
- Baker v. Big Star Div. of the Grand Union Co., 893 F.2d 288 (11th Cir. 1989) (claims-processing/recordkeeping by third parties are non-fiduciary)
- Pohl v. Nat’l Benefits Consultants, Inc., 956 F.2d 126 (7th Cir. 1992) (ministerial or clerical acts are not fiduciary acts)