Join The Conversation
Don Levit
11/17/2008 01:47 PM
Brian:
Can you cite a portion of ERISA or any federal court case in which the relationship between an insurer and insured is a fiduciary one? To my knowledge, it is settled law that the relationship between an insurer and insured is not fiduciary in character, Corrado Bros. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 562 A.2d 1188, 1192 (Del. 1989).
Don Levit
Brian S. King
11/17/2008 01:47 PM
Don, a couple of provisions of ERISA have to be read together to establish the legal proposition you ask about. The first is 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1104(a)(1) which states that ERISA fiduciaries must act "solely in the interest of the [ERISA plan] participants and beneficiaries . . . and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits . . ." to them. The second provision is 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1002(21) which states that any person or entity in connection with an ERISA plan who exercises any discretionary authority, control or responsibility respecting the assets of an ERISA plan or in administering the plan is a fiduciary. And once the label of "fiduciary" is affixed to an insurer, the duty of loyalty outlined in 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1104(a)(1) comes into play. Many decisions have concluded that insurers qualify as fiduciaries under this broad definition.
Don Levit
11/17/2008 01:47 PM
Brian:
Thanks for your reply.
As you posted in this column, insurers have conflicted loyalties. If the insurer is deemed a fiduciary, it would seem to me there would be conflicts in both parts of your fiduciary definition. Insurers do not act solely in the interests of plan participants and beneficiaries. As a practical matter, insurers will have many group clients, say, for health insurance purposes. The insurer is interested in the groups, collectively, not individually. You and I both know that insurers can get creative, when certain groups are costing them money, to discourage their continuance.
In regards to the second part of the fiduciary definition, the insurer usually gets to use the arbitrary and capricious standard for claims denials. How is using that definition enhancing its role to the participants in the first part of the definition, particularly in claims that have gray areas (as you recently posted).
This is exactly why I like the Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association (VEBA), particularly for self-funded multiple employer plans of 10 or more employers. The non commercial insurer here is interested in the entire group, for the entire group is its lifeblood, as one unit.
Don Levit
Brian S. King
11/17/2008 01:47 PM
Don, you ask how an insurer's assertion that it is entitled to have a court defer to its decision to deny a claim squares with its duty of loyalty to its insureds. A great question! You could argue that if an insurer took seriously its fiduciary obligation it would make no attempt to shield itself from unflinching scrutiny by an outside, objective, party. But, to the degree they can do it, insurers always want to tie the hands of a judge so they can have a free a rein as possible.
As for conflicted loyalties, insurers are quick to point out (rightly) that their fiduciary duty is not solely to the single insured whose claim is at issue but to ALL the plan's insureds. They have an obligation to protect the interests not only of the insured making the current claim but to all future insureds who have yet to make claims. Those future claimants are relying on funds to be available days, weeks, months and years down the road. Fair enough.
But, taken to its extreme, that rationale would dictate that no claims are paid now out of the concern that calamity may strike tomorrow. So the "future claimants" consideration can never be used as a justification to wrongfully deny a current insured's valid claim. And both current and future claimants' interests clearly have to be given a priority position by the insured over the company's own concern about making a current profit. That is the behavior ERISA requires of insurers under the fiduciary standards of the statute. supposed to
Don Levit
11/17/2008 01:47 PM
Brian:
I am curious where it states in ERISA that current profits of an insurer are subordinate to current and future claimants' interests. I can see how this is incorporated into surplus and reserves, in that the insurer anticipates losses in some years.
In regards to the insurer having loyalties to current and future insureds, this does have some credence. But as you mentioned, this type of thinking can be extended to the point of utter nonsense. How far into the future is the insurer suppose to project? It seems kind of silly, when the typical contracts are extended only on a yearly basis.
ERISA clearly points to the plan's interests being superior to that of an individual. This does not correspond, in my opinion, to the insurer siding with all current and future insureds over the current individual. There is a difference beteween the insurer's loyalties to all its policyholders, and an ERISA plan's loyalties to all its participants. This is why I like the concept of a VEBA that I mentioned earlier. If self insured, the plan IS the participants!
Don Levit
Phil
11/17/2008 01:47 PM
Brian,
Do you know of any statutory or case law that requires a formal set of plan documents, such as a trust document, for an ERISA plan to be enforceable. I am involved in a situation where my client's employer offers a plan, but the only "plan document" was the summary plan description, which was drafted by and published by the insurance carrier that was acting as a contract administrator. The carrier has indicated that there are no other plan documents. The SPD is about 60 pages long, but it does not provide information as to how the plan is funded, etc. It has what appears to be all the required SPD data. I am looking to see if there is a way to contest ERISA status in the absence of a formal plan and a trust document.
Thanks,
Phil Pfeifer
Post A Comment
Articles
- Posted on 09/24/2010 Testimony of Judge William Acker Before Senate Finance Committee
- Posted on 09/18/2010 DeBofsky Senate Testimony
- Posted on 01/05/2010 Preliminary Injunction in C/HCA, et. al., v. Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield of Utah
News
- Posted on 10/05/2005 Welcome to the Website of Brian S. King
- Posted on 10/05/2005 Visit Healthcare Recovery Solutions Online