When Timothy Van Camp (“Van Camp”) suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident, he was insured by both Appellant Farm Bureau General Insurance Company of Michigan (“Farm Bureau”), a no-fault auto insurer, and an ERISA1 plan administered by Appellee Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (“BCBSM”).
BCBSM contends that its Plan does not cover the medical services received by Van Camp because those services were not medically necessary. Although Farm Bureau had not yet paid for Van Camp’s medical bills, Farm Bureau brought an action under federal common law and, in the alternative, under ERISA § 502(a). Farm Bureau sought a declaration of coverage and reimbursement or recoupment from BCBSM for the cost of Van Camp’s medical care.
The district court dismissed Farm Bureau’s claims. Because Farm Bureau has no standing to bring a claim under federal common law or ERISA § 502(a), we affirm.
FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, Defendant-Appellee., No. 15-2323, 2016 WL 3924243, at *1 (6th Cir. July 21, 2016)
Farm Bureau first filed in state court. Blue Cross removed the case to federal court on the grounds that the claims related to an ERISA plan.
No Fault Carrier Argues
Farm Bureau amended its complaint to seek:
(1) a declaratory judgment stating that BCBSM is first in priority to reimburse Van Camp’s medical claims,
(2) recoupment from BCBSM under federal common law for the payments that Farm Bureau made toward Van Camp’s medical claims, and
(3) as an alternative to its first two claims, equitable subrogation to the remedies available to Van Camp as a Plan participant or beneficiary under ERISA §§ 502(a)(1)(B) and 502(a)(3) (codified at 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(1)(B) and 1132(a)(3)).
Health Plan Responds
Blue Cross filed a motion to dismiss, asserting:
(1) the dispute between the parties was an ERISA denial-of-benefits action under § 502(a)(1)(B), not a priority dispute governed by federal common law or an action for equitable subrogation under § 502(a)(3),
(2) Farm Bureau lacked standing to bring an ERISA denial-of-benefits action because Farm Bureau had not paid Van Camp’s claims and, thus, was not a subrogee, and
(3) even if Farm Bureau were a subrogee, Farm Bureau had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies prior to filing suit.
The Court Rules In Favor of Health Plan
Farm Bureau’s federal-common-law claim fails because it lacked standing to bring its claims. (See #2 above)
The fact that Farm Bureau, a non-participant, non-beneficiary, and non-assignee, has no standing to assert a claim under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), is not evidence of an interstice. It is evidence of Congress’ intention to prohibit all but a narrow range of potential plaintiffs from bringing suit under § 502(a). What Farm Bureau sees as an interstice is, in reality, a deliberate limitation. The Court utilizes federal common law to fill inadvertent gaps, not to open avenues for relief that Congress intentionally closed. The Court declines to circumvent the clear wording of § 502(a).
Farm Bureau cannot bring a claim under federal common law to recoup the amount denied by the Plan when the ERISA provision that specifically provides for the recovery of denied benefits—§ 502(a)(1)(B)—would prohibit Farm Bureau’s claim.
Note: The Court distinguished other cases relied on by Farm Bureau, stating that:
Here, by contrast, there is no coordination-of-benefits dispute. (Appellant Br. at vi.) And more fundamentally, there is no interstice in ERISA’s coverage. An ERISA provision—§ 502(a)(1)(B)—already addresses disputes over denial of benefits, see Weiner, 108 F.3d at 92, and Farm Bureau has no standing to bring a claim under that section because it is not a participant, beneficiary, or assignee, see 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B).
These cases were Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance v. Delfield Company Group Health Plan and Auto Owners Insurance Company v. Thorn Apple Valley, Inc.—who were permitted to bring federal-common-law claims purportedly because they failed to fall within any of the plaintiff categories elucidated in ERISA § 502(a).
In a nutshell:
We permitted the plaintiffs in Thorn Apple Valley and Delfield to bring claims under federal common law because their claims required the court to interpret conflicting coordination-of-benefit clauses. See Delfield, 187 F.3d 637 (Table), 1999 WL 617992, at *3; Thorn Apple Valley, 31 F.3d at 374. This Court relies on federal common law when addressing coordination-of-benefits disputes because neither ERISA nor any other federal statute “addresses the resolution of [a] conflict between [coordination-of-benefits] clauses.” Thorn Apple Valley, 31 F.3d at 374.