Pipefitters Local 636 Insurance Fund v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield
418 F. App'x 430
6th Cir.2011Background
- Fund is an ERISA/TAFT-Hartley multi-employer trust; BCBSM is a Michigan nonprofit under NHCCRA.
- In 2002, Fund became self-funded and entered an Administrative Services Contract with BCBSM for administrative services.
- ASC limits BCBSM to processing and payment of claims; BCBSM not a plan administrator, sponsor, or fiduciary per ERISA.
- Fund requested discount information (pre-discount charges and post-discount payments) dating to ASC inception; BCBSM refused to disclose.
- Fund sued BCBSM in 2004 alleging breach of ERISA fiduciary duty; district court dismissed; on appeal this court partially reversed.
- On remand, Fund amended complaint to address pleading issues; district court later granted summary judgment on Count III for Fund.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether law of the case bars Count III | Fund argues prior mandate does not allow amendment; issues reopenable on remand. | BCBSM contends law of the case forecloses reconsideration of the dismissal of Count III. | Law of the case bars further consideration; Count III should be dismissed. |
| Whether BCBSM was an ERISA fiduciary regarding discount information | BCBSM’s negotiations create fiduciary discretion to disclose discounts. | Discretionary authority does not arise from mere adherence to contract or business decisions. | BCBSM is not an ERISA fiduciary regarding discount information; reversal of summary judgment. |
| Whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment sua sponte | Fund properly argued Count III; district court ruling was in response to those arguments. | Judgment based on unargued grounds; improper sua sponte grant. | Not necessary to decide separately due to law-of-the-case outcome; relief on Count III reversed. |
| Whether amending the complaint was proper after appeal | Amendment permitted under liberal Rule 15(a) standard. | Cannot amend after an appeal from dismissal; mandate forecloses cure. | Amendment improperly pursued; count should be dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hadix v. Johnson, 228 F.3d 662 (6th Cir. 2000) (pendent appellate jurisdiction standard described)
- Scott v. Churchill, 377 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 2004) (law of the case doctrine governs subsequent stages)
- Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605 (U.S. 1983) (law of the case and mandate rules explained)
- Westside Mothers v. Olszewski, 454 F.3d 532 (6th Cir. 2006) (law of the case; exceptional circumstances for exception)
- Contents of Accounts, 629 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2011) (summary of pendent jurisdiction scope)
- Petition of U.S. Steel Corp., 479 F.2d 489 (6th Cir.) (mandate and law-of-the-case principles applied)