ERISA Pre-Emption of Bad Faith Claims
Wyoming Bad Faith Claims Against Employee Benefit Plans are Pre-empted by ERISA
by Michael Commins, Paralegal and Sara E. Van Genderen, Esq.
In the case of Moffett v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., 291 F. 3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2002), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision by the U. S. District Court for the District of Wyoming that in Wyoming, claims for bad faith against employer-sponsored benefit plans are pre-empted by ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001, et. seq.).
The plaintiff, Douglas Moffett, sued Halliburton, which had been his employer before his disability. He also sued Halliburton’s designated plan administrator and Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company, which provided insurance under Moffett’s plan. Moffett’s complaint included, inter alia, claims against Hartford for “the tort of insurance bad faith” and for breach of the statutory duty to accept or reject insurance claims under W.S. § 26-15-124. The court held the claims against Hartford were properly dismissed because ERISA comprehensively regulates employee benefit plans that, through the purchase of insurance, provide medical care. To facilitate ERISA’s comprehensive regulation, Congress enacted a preemption clause which preempts any state law relating to any employee benefit plan. ERISA does contain exceptions to the preemption clause; however, ERISA preemption is deliberately expansive. ERISA’s saving clause excepts state laws that regulate insurance.
Moffett argued that Wyoming’s bad faith law regulated insurance so as to escape ERISA’s preemption clause. Moffett’s argument relied on the case of Unum Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 526 U.S. 358 (1999), in which the United States Supreme Court explained that to regulate insurance, a law must home in on the insurance industry, not just have in impact on it. Unum involved California’s notice-prejudice rule. The notice-prejudice rule stated that an insurer must prove prejudice from an insured’s failure to give timely notice of a claim in order to enforce its proof-of-claim requirements. The Supreme Court held that California’s notice-prejudice rule did specifically regulate insurance and was therefore not preempted by ERISA . The Moffett court, in applying the guidelines set forth in Unum, found that bad faith law in Wyoming does not regulate insurance such that it falls within the ERISA saving clause. Moffett’s claim for bad faith against Hartford, the insurance provider in Moffett’s employee benefit plan, was therefore pre-empted by ERISA.
This article was first published in Wyoming Lawyer, the official publication of the Wyoming State Bar Association.
Mullikin, Larson & Swift LLC
Office: 155 East Pearl Avenue
Mail: P.O. Box 4099
Jackson, Wyoming 83001-4099
Tel: (307) 733 3923
Fax: (307) 733 3947
Since 1985, the lawyers of Mullikin, Larson & Swift have been representing businesses, individuals and families across Wyoming, especially in the Western Wyoming communities of Teton County, Sublette County, Lincoln County and Fremont County from their offices in Jackson, Wyoming. Mullikin, Larson & Swift LLC is an AV peer rated law firm with seven experienced lawyers and five legal support staff. Mullikin, Larson & Swift LLC is well equipped to handle the legal needs of its clients in Jackson Hole (Jackson, Wilson, Teton Village, Moose , Moran and Hoback Junction), Alpine, Pinedale, Afton, Dubois, Lander, Big Piney and Marbleton from its offices at 155 East Pearl Street in Jackson, Wyoming. We are listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers and Martindale-Hubbel. Click here to check our listing on Martindale-Hubbell.
We are also listed in Best's Directory of Recommended Insurance Attorneys. Click here or on the "Best's" icon to check our Best's listing.
The Wyoming State Bar does not certify any lawyer as a specialist or expert. Anyone considering a lawyer should independently investigate the lawyer's credentials and ability, and not rely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise.
The materials on this web site are provided for informational purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice nor do they necessarily reflect the opinions of Mullikin, Larson and Swift or any of its attorneys or clients. There is no implicit guarantee that this information is correct, complete, or up-to-date. This web site is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between you and Mullikin, Larson & Swift LLC. You should not act or rely on any information in this web site without seeking the advice of an attorney.