Riley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
971 F. Supp. 2d 186
D. Mass.2013Background
- Riley, a former MetLife manager, went on disability in 2000 and later returned to work in a lower-paid position; long-term disability (LTD) benefits were approved in 2005.
- MetLife calculated Riley’s LTD benefits based on his lower (post-management) salary, producing a $871/month award reduced by Social Security offset to $50/month (the plan minimum).
- Riley received the first LTD check in April 2005, refused to cash checks, and notified MetLife of a dispute by counsel in 2005.
- Prior counsel filed and lost a state-court suit (dismissed as ERISA-preempted) and then a flawed federal filing that was dismissed; counsel failed to inform Riley of dismissals.
- Riley refiled in 2012 against MetLife under ERISA to recover unpaid benefits; MetLife moved for summary judgment asserting the six-year Massachusetts limitations period had run.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did Riley’s ERISA benefits claim accrue for statute-of-limitations purposes? | Each underpayment restarts limitations ("installment contract"/continuing-violation): can recover payments within six years of suit. | Accrual when beneficiary knew or should have known of miscalculation (2005); single cause of action, suit time-barred. | Accrual occurred in 2005 when miscalculation repudiated benefits; action filed in 2012 is untimely. |
| Which limitations period applies? | Six-year contract-like limitations under Massachusetts law applies to benefits claims. | Agrees six-year period applies. | Six-year Massachusetts period applies; accrual determines timeliness. |
| Is equitable tolling available due to prior counsel’s negligence and missed filings? | Prior counsel’s failures prevented timely filing; tolling needed to avoid unfairness. | Attorney negligence is not extraordinary; tolling unwarranted. | Equitable tolling denied: counsel mistakes are "garden-variety" neglect and not extraordinary. |
| Should an "installment contract" or "clear repudiation" accrual rule apply to ERISA benefit miscalculations? | Installment rule appropriate; each payment is a new wrong. | Repudiation/clear repudiation rule: single wrongful act accrues when known. | Declined installment approach; adopted clear-repudiation rule consistent with other circuits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Novella v. Westchester County, 661 F.3d 128 (2d Cir.) (accrual when beneficiary knows or should know of miscalculation)
- Miller v. Fortis Benefits Ins. Co., 475 F.3d 516 (3d Cir.) (underpayment can constitute repudiation; accrual on clear repudiation)
- Edes v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 417 F.3d 133 (1st Cir.) (distinguishing continuing wrongs and accrual in §510/tort-like claims)
- Ferbar Corp. v. Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund, 522 U.S. 192 (installment approach applied where initial act created no liability)