Rob Hoskins
07-20-2010, 11:27 AM
In Angevine, et. al. v. Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan, et. al., plaintiff essentially sought benefits from an ERISA governed pension plan. Plaintiff filed suit asserting benefits and a breach of fiduciary duty claim. (The court dismisses the breach of fiduciary duty claim as being improper.) Plaintiff worked for Anheuser-Busch which was acquired by A-B InBev. Plaintiff made a claim for benefits from the predecessor company and was essentially told that he was not eligible to make a claim. Plaintiff filed suit for benefits and the defendants moved to dismiss the case because plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Plaintiff argued that he was not required to exhaust administrative remedies because he attempted to file a claim, but was “repudiated”. The court first distinguishes between the doctrines of futility and repudiation.
Defendants argue that plaintiff’s ERISA claim for wrongful denial of benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) should be dismissed because plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this action. In response, plaintiff contends that defendants’ November 27, 2009 email waived his obligation to exhaust his administrative remedies. Plaintiff repeatedly asserts that this communication “repudiated” his right to the +5/+5 retirement benefit enhancement under the Plan. See (Doc. #21, at 1, 3-5). Plaintiff then concludes that the email “establishe[s] that filing a claim for +5/+5 enhanced benefits would be utterly futile, permitting [him] to file suit without first engaging in the administrative process[.]” (Doc. #21, at 6) (emphasis added).
Plaintiff confuses the doctrine of repudiation and the futility exception. Repudiation addresses when the statute of limitations for an ERISA claim for benefits begins to run. See Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Beckham, 138 F.3d 325, 330 (8th Cir. 1998). Unlike the doctrine of repudiation, the futility exception concerns whether a benefit claimant must first exhaust all administrative remedies before filing a claim in federal court. See Galman v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 254 F.3d 768, 770 (8th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). Because the parties’ dispute centers on whether plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this action, the Court will now address the futility exception.
After holding that the plaintiff really is asserting the doctrine of futility, the court holds that plaintiff has failed to establish futility.
Plaintiff cites Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Beckham, 138 F.3d 325 (8th Cir. 1998), and Janssen v. Minneapolis Auto Dealers Benefit Fund, 447 F.3d 1109 (8th Cir. 2006), to support his contention that exhaustion of administrative procedures would be futile. However, plaintiff’s reliance on these cases is misplaced. First, in Union Pacific, the Eighth Circuit did not discuss the futility exception. Rather, the appellate court determined that the statute of limitations for the benefit plan participants’ claims for wrongful denial of benefits began to run as of the date that the employers and benefit plans repudiated the participants’ right to benefits. Second, in Janssen, the Eighth Circuit did not address the exhaustion requirement. See 447 F.3d at 1113-15.
Upon careful review of plaintiff’s complaint, the Court finds that plaintiff’s allegations fail to demonstrate with certainty that defendants would have been denied upon appeal. A change in control occurred on November 18, 2008 when A-B InBev acquired ABC. (Doc. #1, at 3, para. 11). On December 1, 2009, Blackstone acquired plaintiff’s employer, BEC, which involuntarily terminated his “employment with the Controlled Group[.]” Id. at 8, at para. 25. Prior to the sale of BEC, on November 27, 2009, defendants sent an email to all of BEC’s salaried employees, including plaintiff, informing them that they “[would] not be eligible for the +5/+5 enhancement upon the date of [their] separation from active
participation in the . . . Plan or at the time of [their] termination of employment with BEC after the sale [was] finalized.” (Doc. #1, at 10, para. 34). Plaintiff made no attempt to verify his eligibility for the +5/+5 enhancement. Instead, plaintiff filed the instant action the same day that Blackstone acquired BEC. Apart from the November 27, 2009 email, plaintiff’s complaint contains no allegations that establishes with certainty that the Plan administrator would have denied plaintiff’s claim for the +5/+5 benefit enhancement upon initial review and appeal. The Court, thus, finds that the futility exception does not apply in this case. See Commc’ns Workers of Am. v. AT & T Co., 40 F.3d 426, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (“Simply put, denial of initial claims, which is all the record reveals, is not enough to show futility of internal Plan remedies.”).
The court dismisses the plaintiff’s complaint as a result. A copy of the decision is attached.
Defendants argue that plaintiff’s ERISA claim for wrongful denial of benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) should be dismissed because plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this action. In response, plaintiff contends that defendants’ November 27, 2009 email waived his obligation to exhaust his administrative remedies. Plaintiff repeatedly asserts that this communication “repudiated” his right to the +5/+5 retirement benefit enhancement under the Plan. See (Doc. #21, at 1, 3-5). Plaintiff then concludes that the email “establishe[s] that filing a claim for +5/+5 enhanced benefits would be utterly futile, permitting [him] to file suit without first engaging in the administrative process[.]” (Doc. #21, at 6) (emphasis added).
Plaintiff confuses the doctrine of repudiation and the futility exception. Repudiation addresses when the statute of limitations for an ERISA claim for benefits begins to run. See Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Beckham, 138 F.3d 325, 330 (8th Cir. 1998). Unlike the doctrine of repudiation, the futility exception concerns whether a benefit claimant must first exhaust all administrative remedies before filing a claim in federal court. See Galman v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 254 F.3d 768, 770 (8th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). Because the parties’ dispute centers on whether plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this action, the Court will now address the futility exception.
After holding that the plaintiff really is asserting the doctrine of futility, the court holds that plaintiff has failed to establish futility.
Plaintiff cites Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Beckham, 138 F.3d 325 (8th Cir. 1998), and Janssen v. Minneapolis Auto Dealers Benefit Fund, 447 F.3d 1109 (8th Cir. 2006), to support his contention that exhaustion of administrative procedures would be futile. However, plaintiff’s reliance on these cases is misplaced. First, in Union Pacific, the Eighth Circuit did not discuss the futility exception. Rather, the appellate court determined that the statute of limitations for the benefit plan participants’ claims for wrongful denial of benefits began to run as of the date that the employers and benefit plans repudiated the participants’ right to benefits. Second, in Janssen, the Eighth Circuit did not address the exhaustion requirement. See 447 F.3d at 1113-15.
Upon careful review of plaintiff’s complaint, the Court finds that plaintiff’s allegations fail to demonstrate with certainty that defendants would have been denied upon appeal. A change in control occurred on November 18, 2008 when A-B InBev acquired ABC. (Doc. #1, at 3, para. 11). On December 1, 2009, Blackstone acquired plaintiff’s employer, BEC, which involuntarily terminated his “employment with the Controlled Group[.]” Id. at 8, at para. 25. Prior to the sale of BEC, on November 27, 2009, defendants sent an email to all of BEC’s salaried employees, including plaintiff, informing them that they “[would] not be eligible for the +5/+5 enhancement upon the date of [their] separation from active
participation in the . . . Plan or at the time of [their] termination of employment with BEC after the sale [was] finalized.” (Doc. #1, at 10, para. 34). Plaintiff made no attempt to verify his eligibility for the +5/+5 enhancement. Instead, plaintiff filed the instant action the same day that Blackstone acquired BEC. Apart from the November 27, 2009 email, plaintiff’s complaint contains no allegations that establishes with certainty that the Plan administrator would have denied plaintiff’s claim for the +5/+5 benefit enhancement upon initial review and appeal. The Court, thus, finds that the futility exception does not apply in this case. See Commc’ns Workers of Am. v. AT & T Co., 40 F.3d 426, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (“Simply put, denial of initial claims, which is all the record reveals, is not enough to show futility of internal Plan remedies.”).
The court dismisses the plaintiff’s complaint as a result. A copy of the decision is attached.