Tribal court retains jurisdiction for tribal member's disability insurance lawsuit against Assurant and Union Security
When Richard Geroux brought a long-term disability insurance underpayment complaint before the Tribal Court of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, L’Anse Reservation, Mich., the insurance companies involved, Assurant, Inc (Assurant) and Union Security Insurance Company (Union Security) immediately sought to remove his case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Northern Division. The insurance companies claimed that Geroux’s case fell under ERISA jurisdiction and should be considered in Federal Court.
What is at stake here? Whether the tribal court had jurisdiction. Geroux moved on August 8, 2008 to have his case sent back to tribal court, arguing that his complaint should be decided in tribal court. The Assurant and Union Security filed a counterclaim on August 21, 2008 seeking to move action to Federal Court. They also opposed Geroux’s motion to review the case at tribal council on August 25. In response, Geroux moved to dismiss Union Security’s counterclaim.
On October 15, in this environment of motions and counterclaims, the court denied Assurant and Union Security’s motion that Geroux’s reply brief (arguments for sending the case back to tribal court) be annulled. The court ruled instead to allow Assurant and Union Security to file a reply brief presenting their arguments for deciding the case in Federal Court.
The Court ordered both parties to present further evidentiary support for their positions. Geroux asked for an extension of time to accomplish this. The court gave him until December 5, 2008. Then Assurant and Union Security asked for an extension to December 12. This was also granted. On December 12th and 13th both sides filed their supplemental briefings and evidence supporting their motions. Ten days later, Assurant and Union Security filed a motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery and to file their response to Geroux’s supplemental briefing of the 12th. The court ordered that the response must be filed by January 14, 2009 and set the date for a hearing before the U.S. Magistrate Judge – January 21, 2009.
At that hearing, the judge found that some jurisdictional discovery was necessary and asked Assurant and Union Security to submit a discovery plan to the court. On January 26, 2009, the insurance companies submitted a proposal requiring 180 days to accomplish the necessary research. This was approved on January 27.
During a June 17 tele-conference, the court validated the 180 day deadline. On August 26, Assurant and Union Security requested an extension of 90 days for jurisdictional discovery, and then another 30 days beyond that in which to file their response to Geroux’s supplemental brief. On August 28, the court ordered Geroux to respond to the request for extension by September 11. When a response was not received by this date, the court issued a written notice. On October 6, Geroux filed a notice of non-opposition. On October 13, the court denied the motion for an extension. After 30 days, when neither side had filed additional briefings or evidence, the court proceeded with its decision.
Here are the laws that the court took into consideration:
In general, if a civil action is brought before a state court, the defendant(s) can move the case to Federal court if the US District Court had original jurisdiction. This is automatic if the claim or right arises under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States. Otherwise, civil cases can only be moved if none of the parties in the case are residents of the state in which the case is filed.
If the defendant wants to move a case to Federal court, the burden of proof that the case should be decided within Federal jurisdiction falls upon the defendant. Assurant and Union Security tried to prove Federal jurisdiction by claiming that Geroux’s claim was based on his being a beneficiary of an “employee benefit plan” under ERISA. But ERISA provides beneficiaries the right to file civil actions to recover benefits due under the terms of a plan, to seek enforcement of rights under a plan, or to clarify future benefits under the terms of a plan.
In 2006, Congress amended ERISA to exclude tribal benefits plans from ERISA’s surveillance. While this law was not retroactive, the court still needed to determine if removal from tribal court to Federal court violated Federal law. Geroux claimed that remedies at the tribal level needed to be exhausted before the case could be sent to Federal court.
What finally determined the outcome? Assurant and Union Security were unable, after nearly a year, to support their claim that Federal court held jurisdiction over the case. Case law favored Geroux’s position and without convincing proof of jurisdiction, the Federal court preferred to let the tribal court make the first effort in sorting out the facts. The court felt no pity for the insurance company’s complaints that sending the case back to the tribe would delay the litigation process. In response, the court pointed out how the insurance companies had already delayed the process by almost a year.
Resources to Help You Win Disability Benefits
Disability Benefit Denial Options
Submit a Strong Assurant Appeal Package
We work with you, your doctors, and other experts to submit a very strong Assurant appeal.
Sue Assurant
We have filed thousands of disability denial lawsuits in federal Courts nationwide against Assurant.
Protect Your Benefits
Get Your Assurant Disability Application Approved
We help claimants throughout the entire application process.
Prevent an Assurant Disability Benefit Denial
We manage every aspect of your disability claim following claim approval.
Negotiate an Assurant Lump-Sum Settlement
Our goal is to negotiate the highest possible buyout of your long-term disability policy.
Assurant Reviews
(0)
Answered Questions by Our Lawyers
(0)
Helpful Videos
(776)
Showing 12 of 776 Videos
Disability Benefit Tips
(325)
Showing 8 of 325 Benefit Tips
Can a disability insurance company rely on a Functional Capacity Exam ("FCE") to deny long-term disability benefits?
Unfortunately a recent Appellate court answered this question yes. Every disability case is distinguishable so for every case that says an FCE... Read More >
Disability Denial Reason #1 – Paper Review & IME
At Dell Disability Lawyers, we've seen insurance companies give countless reasons to deny lon... Read More >
How to Apply for Reliance Standard Disability Benefits & Top 5 Reasons for a Claim Denial
At Dell & Schaefer we’ve handled hundreds of long term disability insurance claims against Reliance Standard, and have learned a few thi... Read More >
Applying for Standard Disability Benefits? Top 5 Claim Denial Reasons
At Dell & Schaefer, we've helped hundreds of clients recover long term disability benefit... Read More >
Guardian Disability Benefit Claim Handling Tips
When you finally receive a letter from Guardian Disability informing you that your claim for ... Read More >
Application Tips: Northwestern Mutual Disability Benefits - Top Denial Reasons
Every disability insurance policy is different, and whether your disability insurance claim i... Read More >
Is UNUM a Good Insurance Company?
One common question the attorneys here at Dell Disability Lawyers receive comes from policyho... Read More >
Don’t Ignore Disability Insurance. Here’s What to Buy.
Disability insurance is one of the most important insurance products, yet the vast majority of people working don’t have it. 35% of employer... Read More >
Dell Disability Cases
(355)
Showing 8 of 355 Dell Disability Cases
Assurant overturned its previous denial of long term disability benefits for Maine Sales Consultant
Our client, Ms. C, formerly worked as a Sales Consultant for an international manufacturer of dental materials. In July 2013 a number of medic... Read More >
Lincoln Approves Long Term Disability Benefits After Four Year Fight
With financial protections afforded to disability insurance companies under ERISA that insulate them from extra contractual damages there is v... Read More >
Cigna Sued For Failing To Make A Timely Decision on Appeal
If your disability insurance claim has ever been denied you will have received a formal denial letter from your insurance carrier in which you... Read More >
Lincoln National LTD Denial for Pre-Existing Condition Reversed on Appeal
On December 8th of 2020, a new employee at ServerCentral, now known as Deft, a well-known IT ... Read More >
Illinois Mutual terminates benefits for Tire Kingdom Service Manager After Review By Hired Physician
Our client was a service manager for Tire Kingdom, due to years of working on his feet he dev... Read More >
A Hartford Disability Benefit Lawsuit Victory for Truist Banker with Lupus
Our client found us after she was denied continued disability insurance benefits by the Hartf... Read More >
Hartford Denies Disability Benefits To Home Depot Employee 3 Weeks Before Change of Disability Definition
Our client was a former in-store merchandising associate responsible for the movement of merc... Read More >
Lincoln overturned its previous denial of LTD benefits for Escalation Engineer
Our client, Mr. E, formerly worked as an Escalation Engineer for a national data services and data management company. For many years Mr. E ... Read More >
Disability Lawsuit Stories
(763)
Reviews from Our Clients
