ANTHONY N. MINCHELLA, Plaintiff,
SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, Defendant.
CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.
Before the Court are Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff’s response thereto. For the reasons that follow, the Motion will be granted without prejudice. Plaintiff may amend his complaint to include causes of action sounding in federal law.
I. Factual Background
Plaintiff Anthony Minchella is the administrator of his father’s estate. The decedent, Jason Minchella, was insured under a group life insurance policy as a benefit of his employment issued by Defendant Sun Life Assurance Company. Mr. Minchella died on June 13, 2011. Plaintiff filed a claim with Defendant under the policy, and Defendant refused to pay benefits to Mr. Minchella’s estate. Subsequently, Sun Life acknowledged its responsibility to disburse benefits to the estate, but refused to do so.
II. Procedural Background
On May 31, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas against Defendant, alleging numerous causes of action under the laws of Pennsylvania. On July 1, 2013, Sun Life timely removed to this Court, arguing that the causes of action are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). The next day, Sun Life filed its Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), arguing that because federal law preempts the causes of action alleged in the Complaint, the Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
Defendants remove this action from state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). That statute allows removal by defendants of any action from state court to federal court where the federal court has original jurisdiction. Defendants argue that this court has federal-question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Ordinarily, a federal district court does not have federal-question jurisdiction unless the well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint set forth a cause of action arising under the laws or Constitution of the United States. A federal defense, even a defense that a state-law claim is preempted by ERISA, is not sufficient to make a case removable. However, the Supreme Court has carved out an exception to this rule applicable in the ERISA context: “Congress may so completely pre-empt a particular area that any civil complaint raising this select group of claims is necessarily federal in character.” The Supreme Court in Metropolitan Life held that if a state law cause of action was not only preempted by ERISA but also fell within ERISA’s civil remedy provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a), the claim should be recharacterized as one arising under federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and therefore removable to a federal district court. Therefore, in order to decide whether Sun Life properly removed this case here, the Court must decide first whether any of Plaintiff’s claims are preempted by ERISA and fall within ERISA’s civil remedy provision.
To determine whether ERISA’s civil remedy provision covers Plaintiff’s causes of action, the Court must determine “if [Plaintiff], at some point in time, could have brought his claim under” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a). The provisions of ERISA apply to “any employee benefit plan if it is established or maintained by any employer engaged in commerce or in any industry or activity affecting commerce.” ERISA provides: “A civil action may be brought by a participant or beneficiary to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan [or] to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan.” A “plan” is defined in relevant part as “an employee welfare benefit plan, ” a term that is itself defined as:
“any plan, fund, or program which was heretofore or is hereafter established or maintained by an employer or by an employee organization, or by both, to the extent that such plan, fund, or program was established or is maintained for the purpose of providing for its participants or their beneficiaries, through the purchase of insurance or otherwise, . . . benefits in the event of sickness, accident, disability, death or unemployment.”
The parties do not dispute that the plan at issue was maintained by an employer engaged in commerce and was maintained for the purpose of providing benefits in the event of death. Therefore, the plan is a “plan” within the meaning of ERISA, and it is subject to its provisions. It cannot seriously be questioned on the basis of the Complaint that Plaintiff is seeking to enforce his rights under the plan; he seeks remedies for Defendant’s refusal to provide benefits under the plan, remedies that would not exist unless Plaintiff has enforceable rights under the plan.
Plaintiff argues, however, that Defendant has “waived application of ERISA” by drafting a contract governed by the laws of California and by informing policyholders that questions related to the policy may be addressed to the California Insurance Department. While it is true that many circuit courts have held that a defense based on ERISA’s preemption of state law claims is waivable,  nothing changes the fact that by timely raising preemption in their motion to dismiss, Defendants have not waived the defense.
Since Plaintiff is seeking remedies that fall within ERISA’s civil remedy provision, this case arises under the laws of the United States within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § ...