Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc.
Filed September 30, 2008
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Cite as 06-56368

Claimant Denied Representative Rights in ERISA Claim against Insurance Company

This case arose from a lawsuit filed by Ronnie Simon, an employee enjoying long-term disability and life plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), against Hartford Life, Inc. and Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company, which funded Simon’s policies.

Simon filed the suit as a pro se litigant, alleging a single cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty under 29 U.S.C. section 1109(a).

In response, Hartford filed for dismissal, which the district court granted. However, the district court acknowledged that Simon’s claim was authorized under section 1132(a).

The district court held that a party seeking to assert claims under section 1132 (a) must be represented by counsel and could not proceed as a pro se litigant, under the ERISA mandate.

During review, the Ninth Circuit court of appeals affirmed the judgment, holding Simon’s right to the cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty under section 1109 (a) however he could not do so on behalf of a plan pro se or on behalf of others as representative.

Section 1109(a) provides that “any person who is an ERISA plan fiduciary, and who breaches his or her fiduciary duties to the plan, shall be personally liable to make good to the plan any losses that result”. Section 1132(a), in turn, permits an ERISA plan participant “to bring a civil action for violations of section 1109(a)”.

By general rule, pro se plaintiffs are barred from pursing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity. In an action brought by a pro se litigant, the real party in interest must be the party who by law has the right that is “sought to be enforced”.

The court observed that while a plaintiff filing a claim under section 1109(a) may not be in the same position as one who files a putative class action or an action to enforce rights belonging to a corporation, the Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff under section 1109(a) does proceed in a representative, rather than individual, capacity.

Further, the court observed that because Simon brought an ERISA claim pursuant to section 1109(a), he acted in a representative capacity by requesting relief on behalf of a legal entity other than himself.

The Ninth Circuit court of appeals therefore affirmed a district court judgment, holding that an ERISA plan participant could not proceed in a pro se capacity on his statutory cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty.