The opinion of the court was delivered by: Tucker, J.
Presently before this Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment*fn1 , Defendants' Response in Opposition thereto (Doc. 13), and Plaintiff's Reply (Doc. 15). For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendants for allegedly depriving him of benefits to which he was entitled under a long-term disability plan. Plaintiff brings this claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq. ("ERISA"), and specifically under 29 U.S.C.A. § 1132(a)(1)(B).
The facts giving rise to Plaintiff's Complaint are as follows. On or about November 28, 1999, Plaintiff was hired by Amerisafe and was continually employed through January 15, 2001. During the course of Plaintiff's employ, Amerisafe maintained a short-term disability benefit plan and a long-term disability benefit plan for the benefit of its employees.*fn2 Plaintiff alleges that as part of his employment, he was a participant and beneficiary under each of the plans and entitled to benefits under each. The long-term disability plan was named "Employee Benefit Plan for Employees of Amerisafe Inc." ("Defendant Plan") and is a named defendant in the Complaint. At all relevant times, Defendant Plan was administered by Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company ("Reliance").
Plaintiff alleges that prior to October 23, 2000, he experienced and was treated for various medical conditions. On January 1, 2001, Plaintiff's medical condition left him disabled and unable to return to work. On January 15, 2001, Plaintiff applied for short-term disability benefits, which Defendants granted. Plaintiff continued to receive the short-term disability benefits until they were exhausted on April 3, 2001 - the conclusion of the ninety-day benefits period. Plaintiff alleges that he then timely submitted a timely application for long-term disability benefits under Defendant Plan. On May 21, 2001, Plaintiff was notified that his application for long-term disability benefits under Defendant Plan was approved effective April 3, 2001. Plaintiff qualified for and received long-term disability benefits under the Defendant Plan during the period April 2, 2001 through July 2, 2001.
Plaintiff claims that despite no change in his condition, and without any other reasonable basis under Defendant Plan, Defendant Reliance notified him on December 28, 2001 that his benefits under the Plan were being terminated. On January 14, 2002, counsel for Plaintiff sent a letter requesting an appeal of Reliance's decision. By letter dated May 21, 2002, Reliance notified Plaintiff that it was denying Plaintiff's appeal. Plaintiff avers that the medical records relied on by Reliance contained no evidence that Plaintiff's condition had improved in the time leading up to July 2, 2001. Ultimately, on July 24, 2002, Reliance denied Plaintiff's administrative appeal.
Plaintiff asserts that Reliance's termination of his long-term disability benefits was an abuse of discretion; Reliance's termination of his long-term disability benefits was arbitrary and capricious and not based on the record before it; that Reliance improperly, unlawfully, and in violation of the terms of the Defendant Plan terminated Plaintiff's long-term disability benefits; and that Reliance breached its fiduciary duty owed to Plaintiff in terminating Plaintiff's benefits under the Defendant Plan. Plaintiff further asserts that Amerisafe breached its fiduciary duty to Plaintiff by allowing Reliance to terminate Plaintiff's long-term disability benefits under the Plan. Finally, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Plan breached its fiduciary duty to Plaintiff by allowing Reliance to terminate Plaintiff's long-term disability benefits under Defendant Plan; and improperly, unlawfully, and in violation of the terms of the Plan terminated Plaintiff's long-term disability benefits to which Plaintiff was entitled. In his prayer for relief, Plaintiff seeks amounts he would have received under the Defendant Plan had his benefits not been terminated, costs and reasonable attorney fees, and prejudgment interest.
On May 20, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. 1). On July 11, 2005, Defendant filed an Answer (Doc. 3) generally denying the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint. On February 17, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. In a letter dated February 17, 2006, Defendants informed Plaintiff that his benefits under the policy were being reinstated. Defendants also informed Plaintiff that they were unwilling to pay any fees associated with Plaintiff's Complaint. Additionally, Defendants asked Plaintiff to dismiss the lawsuit based on their voluntary payment of benefits. On March 3, 2006, Defendants filed Response in Opposition thereto (Doc. 13). On March 24, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Reply (Doc. 16). On November 9, 2010, Plaintiff's counsel informed the Court that Defendant did in fact reinstate Plaintiff's benefits and had paid monthly as promised. The court now addresses this pending motion.
Summary judgment is appropriate where the movant establishes that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Levy v. Sterling Holding Co., LLC, 544 F.3d 493, 501 (3d Cir. 2008). The threshold inquiry is whether there are "any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986) (noting that no triable issue exists unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict in its favor). See also Dee v. Borough of Dunmore, 549 F.3d 225, 229 (3d Cir. 2008). The moving party must show that if the evidentiary material of record were reduced to admissible evidence in court, it would be insufficient to permit the non-moving party to carry its burden of proof. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 327 (1986).
Once the movant has carried its burden under Rule 56, "its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)). Under Rule 56(e), the opponent must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial and may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of its pleadings. See Martin v. Godwin, 499 F.3d 290, 295 (3d Cir. 2007). If the opposing party does not so respond, summary judgment should, if appropriate, be entered against that party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). At the summary judgment stage, the court's function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter, but rather to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249; Jiminez v. All American Rathskeller, Inc., 503 F.3d 247, 253 (3d Cir. 2007). In doing so, the court must construe the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the non-movant. See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587; Horsehead Indus., Inc. v. Paramount Commc'ns, Inc., 258 F.3d 132, 140 (3d Cir. 2001). The court must award ...