United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the court on Defendant Life Insurance
Company of North America d/b/a Cigna Insurance Company's
Motion to Dismiss Count III, [Doc. No. 11]. Plaintiff opposes
the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is
17, 2017, Plaintiff filed this action against defendants Life
Insurance Company of North America d/b/a Cigna Insurance
Company and Cloud Peak Energy Resources, LLC under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29
U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461, to recover benefits owed under
an employee welfare benefit plan and damages from
defendants' breach of their fiduciary duties and failure
to provide certain documents upon request.
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she was a full-time
employee of Cloud Peak since July 17, 2006 until January 30,
her employment, Plaintiff became permanently and totally
disabled through injury or sickness or both. She was not able
to perform the material and substantial duties of his job
during the first twenty-four (24) months of her disability,
and thereafter has not been able to perform the material and
substantial duties of any gainful job for which she is
reasonably fitted by his education, training, or experience.
alleges that Cigna determined she was disabled, but later
changed the decision to claim she was not disabled. Her claim
for Long Term Disability benefits from Cigna was denied on
September 2, 2014.
supported her claim with objective medical evidence including
medical records from her treating physicians, including a
report from her primary care physician and her back surgeon.
Plaintiff also included a recorded statement from herself and
a neighbor who served as a caregiver and completed household
services and drove Plaintiff to and from the doctor.
claims Defendants conjured up a false valid review by
focusing only on the records that suggested a less severe
disability that were not supported by the record as a whole.
her written requests, defendants failed to provide her with
all the documents she requested.
seeks to recover benefits owed under the Plan, damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, and penalties for
defendants' failure to produce the Plan documents.
Life Insurance Company of North America moves to dismiss
Plaintiff's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendant argues that Plaintiff's
claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c) fails against it because
it is not the plan administrator. Plaintiff also responds
that Life Insurance Company of North America can be held
liable for § 1132(c) penalties for failing to provide
him with the Plan documents because it performed plan
to Dismiss Standard
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the legal
sufficiency of the complaint. See Carton v. General Motor
Acceptance Corp., 611 F.3d 451, 454 (8th Cir. 2010);
Young v. City of St. Charles, 244 F.3d 623, 627 (8th
Cir. 2001). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint
must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). To meet the
plausibility standard, the complaint must contain “more
than labels and conclusions.” Id. at 555.
Rather, the complaint must contain “factual content