Neumiller v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company
2:22-cv-00610-TSZ
W.D. Wash.Nov 3, 2023Background:
- Plaintiff Julie Neumiller sued under ERISA alleging Hartford improperly terminated her long‑term disability benefits by miscalculating her "Trimester Bonus."
- The district court entered judgment for Hartford; Neumiller appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit held Hartford failed to properly prorate the Trimester Bonus, vacated the judgment, and remanded for development of the administrative record.
- This Court then remanded the matter to Hartford with instructions to supplement the administrative record about Trimester Bonuses.
- Neumiller moved for attorneys’ fees and costs under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1), seeking $42,000 (district‑court work) and withdrawing her request for appellate fees.
- The Court found Neumiller achieved "some degree of success," applied the Hummel factors, found fees appropriate, and awarded $42,000 in fees and $844.40 in costs.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to fees under ERISA | Remand vacating judgment and directing further administrative development is "some degree of success" warranting fees | Remand is a trivial or merely procedural victory that does not justify fees | Court: Remand constitutes sufficient success; fees may be awarded under Hardt |
| Appropriate test for fee award | Apply Hummel factors to determine whether to grant fees | Same test applicable; dispute on whether factors favor fees | Court applied Hummel and found factors support awarding fees |
| Culpability/deterrence | Hartford miscalculated Trimester Bonus, failing ERISA duties; fees will deter similar conduct | Argued triviality of success undermines fee award (implicit) | Court found Hartford culpable in failing to prorate bonus and deterrence supports fees |
| Reasonableness of amount | Counsel sought $600/hr and submitted hours totaling $42,000 for district work | Hartford did not dispute hours or rate | Court found hours and $600/hr reasonable and awarded $42,000 + $844.40 costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U.S. 242 (2010) (ERISA fee awards require "some degree of success on the merits")
- Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680 (1983) (framework for fee awards; success on the merits requirement)
- Hummel v. S.E. Rykoff & Co., 634 F.2d 446 (9th Cir. 1980) (factors for awarding attorneys’ fees in ERISA cases)
- Gross v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 763 F.3d 73 (1st Cir. 2014) (remand can constitute sufficient success to warrant fees)
- Bunger v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 231 F. Supp. 3d 865 (W.D. Wash. 2017) (remand is not merely procedural; supports fee awards)
- Carpenters S. Cal. Admin. Corp. v. Russell, 726 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir. 1984) (deterrence and fiduciary duties relevant to awarding fees)
- Smith v. CMTA-IAM Pension Tr., 746 F.2d 587 (9th Cir. 1984) (fee awards may be appropriate where prevailing party benefits other plan participants)