The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge McClure
On November 28, 2008, plaintiffs Robert W. Keintz and Kathryn I. Agnew instituted this civil action against defendants, Belron US Inc., Safelite Group, Inc., the Belron US Inc. Group Disability Income Plan, the Belron US Inc. Group Life Plan, the Safelite Glass Corp Group Disability Income Plan, and the Safelite Glass Corp Group Life Insurance Plan (collectively "the Belron defendants"). In their complaint, plaintiff's allege they are entitled to equitable relief (Count I) and breach of fiduciary duty (Count II) pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)(B).
On January 16, 2009, the Belron defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. Attached to the Belron defendants' motion were copies of the insurance policies which covered plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs had not attached these policies to their complaint. Because we did not exclude the policies defendants attached to their Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion, pursuant to Rule 12(d) we were required to treat the motion as one for summary judgment under Rule 56. Both parties were given an opportunity to present all material pertinent to the motion. We also ordered the parties to address the issue of who is the plan administrator for the policies, the authenticity of the policies defendants attached, and any other information the parties found to be pertinent to a summary judgment motion.
Accordingly, defendants filed their supplemental brief on May 11, 2009 (Rec. Doc. No. 18), and plaintiffs on May 28, 2009 (Rec. Doc. No. 20). Thus the matter is ripe for disposition.
Now, therefore, we will deny defendants' motion to dismiss, which we converted to a motion for summary judgment.
III. Factual Background*fn1
Plaintiffs Robert Keintz and Kathryn Agnew are spouses. In April 1998, Keintz began working for Safelite, which was acquired by Belron in March 2007*fn2.
Belron offers employees and their dependents a short-term disability policy, long-term disability policy, and group life insurance. According to the complaint, Belron serves as administrator and sponsor of these plans.
In February 2007, Keintz was diagnosed with stage IV lung cancer. In March 2007, Keintz told his employer about his diagnosis. Over the next eight months, Keintz repeatedly requested benefits handbooks or booklets. It wasn't until October 29, 2007, when plaintiffs and their attorney called Belron, that Belron gave Keintz the requested information. Purportedly, Belron's benefits manager, Donna Gibson, told plaintiffs and their attorney that Keintz's benefits are determined through a "benefits base." Gibson went on to explain that Keintz's benefits base was currently $88,000 and would increase to $121,000 on January 1, 2008. Keintz asked if the benefits base would be affected by the date Keintz chose to claim the benefits. Gibson confirmed that even if Keintz filed his claim for disability benefits prior to January 2008, his benefits base would still increase in January 2008.
Keintz finally received a benefits booklet on October 30, 2007, but this booklet did not describe the application of the benefits base. On November 6, 2007, Keintz spoke with Dawn Ferrell, a member of Belron's human resources department. Ferrell explained that if Keintz filed a claim for short-term disability, his benefit rate of 60% would be applied to a benefit base of $88,000, and that the benefit rate of 60% would be applied to a benefit base of $121,000 after January 1, 2008. Ferrell confirmed that the increase in benefit base would take effect without regard to the date Keintz elected to file his claim for disability.
Relying on this information, Keintz began disability on November 12, 2007. On November 27, 2007, Keintz again spoke with Ferrell. Ferrell advised Keintz that his current benefits base was $88,096, and would increase to $121,992 on January 1, 2008. When Keintz did not receive an increase in his disability payment in January 2008, he emailed Ferrell to find out why, and received a response from Gibson stating that if a plan participant is out on leave while the plan year changes, he does not receive the updated amount. Keintz asserts that had he known that his benefit base would not increase on January 1, 2008, he would have waited to file his claim.
Defendants made Keintz an offer, which he did not accept. Plaintiffs appealed to the plan administrator, but ...