The Ninth Circuit, in Daic v. Hawaii Pacific Health Group Plan for Employee of Hawaii Pacific Health, No. 06-17324, 2008 WL 3862074 (9th Cir. Aug. 13, 2008) analyzed whether MetLife, the insurer who administered the ERISA plan but was not a specifically names fiduciary, was nonetheless a plan fiduciary and whether, in light of Glenn the district court erred by inadequately considering MetLife’s structural conflict of interest. The Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that MetLife was not a fiduciary, finding that the discretionary language in the plan sufficiently identified MetLife as a fiduciary for purposes of ERISA. The Ninth Circuit also found that the district court adequately considered the conflict of interest, noting that while the district court did not have the benefit of the Glenn decision, it made a careful analysis of the relevant factors, including MetLife’s structural conflict of interest. The court explained: “Because the record does not contain evidence of malice, self-dealing, or other circumstances suggesting a higher likelihood that the structural conflict affected the benefits decision, the district court did not err in holding that the importance of MetLife’s conflict was low.”

The Eleventh Circuit reconsidered its decision in favor of an ERISA plan participant in Doyle v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston 542 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 2008) following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Glenn. On rehearing, after concluding the district court did not err in its determination that the insurer’s decision was reasonable, the Eleventh Circuit asked whether the district court should have placed greater weight on the existence of a conflict of interest than it did.

After Glenn, the administrator des not bear the burden of proving that its discretion was not influenced by a conflict. The court held that Glenn requires a court to consider a conflict of interest whenever it is present, regardless of whether that administrator was influenced. Nevertheless, the court stated that
there is no evidence in the record suggesting a higher likelihood that the conflict affected the insurer’s benefits decision. The court held that the conflict should have been accorded little weight and that the insurer did not abuse its discretion.

Tags:

This entry was posted by Adam V. Russo on Wednesday, May 13th, 2009 at 3:06 pm and is filed under 11th, 9th, MetLife v. Glenn. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.