The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert P. Patterson, Jr., U.S.D.J
On March 10, 2011, Plaintiff Michael Cacoperdo ("Plaintiff" or "Cacoperdo") filed an Amended Complaint asserting three causes of action. The first is a claim for benefits under section 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., against Hartford Life Insurance Company ("Hartford"). Plaintiff alleges that Hartford improperly denied his claim for continuing long term disability benefits ("LTD benefits"). The second and third causes of action were brought against Medical Evaluations Specialists, Inc. ("MES") and MLS National Medical Evaluations, Inc. ("MLS"), respectively, who were retained by Hartford to prepare medical peer review reports. Plaintiff alleges that MES and MLS knew or should have known of a valid contract between Hartford and the Plaintiff, and that they induced Hartford to breach the contract by creating medical findings and opinions that would lead Hartford to fail to discharge its duties and obligations under the contract. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of these actions by MES and MLS, Hartford denied the Plaintiff's claim and refused to pay his LTD benefits.
Defendant Hartford moved to dismiss the entire Amended Complaint on procedural grounds. Each of the Defendants moved to dismiss the second and third causes of action on substantive grounds. For the reasons set forth below, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the second and third causes of action in the Amended Complaint is granted.
Plaintiff Michael Cacoperdo was an employee at Stop & Shop Supermarkets Co. ("Stop & Shop"). (Plaintiff's Amended Complaint dated 3/8/11 ("Am. Compl.") ¶ 10.) During Plaintiff's employment with Stop & Shop, CNA Group Life Assurance Company issued to Stop & Shop a long term group disability income policy (the "LTD Plan" or "Plan") under Plan Number 83147923 (Id.) The LTD Plan provided, among other things, that disability insurance payments would be made to Plaintiff in the event that he became disabled due to injury or sickness. (Id. ¶ 20.) In 2003, Hartford purchased all of CNA's group disability plans. (Defendant Hartford's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint dated 4/18/11 ("Def. Hartford Mem.") at 1.) Hartford insured and administered all CNA policies as the successor-in-interest. (Id.; see Am. Compl. ¶ 11.)
On or about February 2005, Plaintiff became disabled.*fn1
(Am. Compl. ¶ 21.) Plaintiff filed a claim for disability
with Hartford which was accepted, and on August 29, 2005, Hartford
commenced payments of benefits to Cacoperdo under the Plan. (Id. ¶
23.) Plaintiff received payments until January 26, 2010 when Hartford
ceased to make payments. (Id. ¶ 23, 25.) Plaintiff alleges that these
conditions have resulted in restrictions and limitations in
functionality that prevent him from performing his own occupation or
any occupation as that term is defined in the policy. (Id. ¶ 24.)
After January 26, 2010, Hartford denied Cacoperdo's continued eligibility for LTD benefits on the grounds that Plaintiff "failed to submit proof demonstrating that he continued to meet the Plan's definition of disability beyond that date." (Hartford's Answer to Complaint ¶ 21.) Prior to its initial denial of Cacoperdo's claim, and in making its final appeal determination, Hartford relied on "medical record peer review reports" prepared by independent physicians. (Def. Hartford Mem. at 1.) MES and MLS retained these physicians pursuant to a service contract with Hartford. (Id.) Hartford's initial and appeal determinations were made, in part, by referencing these independent physicians' reports. (Id.) Hartford determined that Plaintiff's limitations and restrictions no longer barred him from engaging in any occupation as defined by the Plan. (Id.) Cacoperdo claims he is currently "totally disabled." (Am. Compl. ¶ 24.)
On October 14, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Hartford, alleging that Hartford willfully and wrongfully breached the terms and conditions of the Plan and improperly denied his claim for continuing LTD benefits under ERISA. (Plaintiff's Complaint dated 10/13/10 ¶ 21.) Plaintiff claims that Hartford is a "conflicted decision maker" because it has a financial interest in the outcome of Plaintiff's LTD claim, and that this structural conflict pervaded its handling of the claim. (Id. ¶¶ 28-29.) Plaintiff cites a number of alleged "procedural irregularities" in Hartford's claim handling, including the failure to perform a medical examination of Plaintiff; relying on "paid paper medical reviews by biased and unqualified evaluators"; and the selective review of medical records. (Id. ¶ 29.) In addition, Plaintiff alleges that Hartford terminated his claim without any improvement of his medical condition, failed to consider the Plaintiff's award of Social Security disability benefits, and overemphasized the results of the surveillance it obtained. (Id. ¶ 29.) Plaintiff requests the Court to review the case de novo and to order Hartford to pay for the Plaintiff's LTD benefits as long as he remains "totally disabled." In addition, Plaintiff claims recovery of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to ERISA section 502(a). On January 11, 2011, Hartford submitted its Answer to the Complaint requesting a dismissal of the Plaintiff's cause of action, and an award of reasonable costs of suit and attorney's fees.
On March 10, 2011, Plaintiff submitted an Amended Complaint asserting causes of action against Defendant Hartford, as well as two new defendants-MES and MLS. Plaintiff alleges that MES and MLS knew or should have known of the valid contract between Hartford and the Plaintiff, and that they induced Hartford to breach the contract by creating medical findings and opinions that would lead Hartford to fail to discharge its duties and obligations under the contract. (Id. ¶¶ 45-57.) Plaintiff alleges that as a result of these actions by MES and MLS, Hartford denied the Plaintiff's claim and refused to pay Plaintiff's LTD benefits. (Id.) Plaintiff requests a jury trial on these causes of action, and in relief, seeks "the amount of disability insurance benefits that Plaintiff would have been entitled to, plus additional damages." (Id., Wherefore clause ¶¶ g, h.)
On April 18, 2011, Hartford filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a) and Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., asserting that (1) the Amended Complaint should be stricken as improperly filed; (2) the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for relief against MES and MLS; (3) the Amended Complaint should be dismissed for Plaintiff's unreasonable delay; and (4) Plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial for the second and third counts under ERISA. (Def. Hartford Mem.)
Also on April 18, 2011, MLS filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint. On April 25, 2011, MES submitted a motion to dismiss, asserting that (1) Plaintiff's claim against them must be dismissed as preempted; and (2) Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim for tortious inducement. (Defendant MES's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint dated 4/25/11 ("Def. MES Mem.")) On May 9, 2011, MLS filed a notice of concurrence with MES's motion to dismiss and moved to join in the relief requested by MES.
On May 27, 2011, Plaintiff submitted his response in opposition to the Defendants' motions to dismiss. On June 20, 2011, all three Defendants submitted their replies to the Plaintiff's opposition. Oral ...