Court Denies Aetna's Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration in ERISA Fiduciary Duty Case
ARAMARK SERVICES, INC. f/k/a ARAMARK CORPORATION; ARAMARK SERVICES, INC. GROUP HEALTH PLAN; ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES GROUP HEALTH AND WELFARE PLAN; and ARAMARK BENEFITS COMPLIANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE, Plaintiffs, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 2:23-CV-00446-JRG.
United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division.
April 26, 2024.
RODNEY GILSTRAP, District Judge.
Introduction
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas denied Aetna Life Insurance Company's ("Aetna") motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration in a case filed by Aramark Services, Inc. and related entities ("Aramark"). Aramark alleges that Aetna breached its fiduciary duty as a third-party plan administrator under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").
Case Background
Aramark sponsors the Aramark Services, Inc. Group Health Plan and the Aramark Uniform Services Group Health and Welfare Plan, which are organized under ERISA. In 2018, Aramark hired Aetna to provide third-party administrative services for these plans. Their relationship is governed by a Master Services Agreement ("MSA"), which includes an arbitration provision.
Aramark filed a complaint against Aetna on September 27, 2023, claiming that Aetna breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA. Aetna subsequently filed a motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration and a petition to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA").
Legal Standard
Under the FAA, an arbitration agreement involving interstate commerce is enforceable unless valid legal or equitable grounds exist for revocation. Courts typically engage in a two-step inquiry to determine whether to enforce an arbitration agreement: contract formation (whether an agreement exists) and contract interpretation (whether the claim is covered by the agreement). Unless explicitly delegated to the arbitrator, these are issues for the court to decide.
Discussion
Delegation of Arbitrability
Aetna argued that the MSA's arbitration provision, which incorporates the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") rules, delegates the power to resolve threshold issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator. However, Aramark pointed out that the provision carves out claims seeking equitable relief, meaning the court should decide arbitrability for such claims.
The court found that the arbitration provision did not clearly delegate all arbitrability issues to the arbitrator due to the carve-out for equitable relief. Therefore, the court decided to address the issue of arbitrability itself.
ERISA Claims and Equitable Relief
Aramark's amended complaint includes claims under 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(2) and (a)(3) of ERISA, seeking monetary damages for Aetna's alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The court considered whether these claims are subject to arbitration.
Aetna contended that Aramark's claims seek legal relief and should be arbitrated, relying on Supreme Court cases that generally limited equitable relief under ERISA to specific funds wrongfully in the defendant's possession. Aramark countered by citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIGNA Corp. v. Amara and the Fifth Circuit's Gearlds v. Entergy Servs., which recognized that monetary damages against fiduciaries could be considered equitable relief.
The court agreed with Aramark, finding that claims under §§ 1132(a)(2) and (a)(3) for monetary damages are equitable, particularly against fiduciaries, based on the precedent set by Amara and Gearlds. Consequently, Aramark's claims fall within the carve-out for equitable relief and are not subject to mandatory arbitration.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed, the court denied Aetna's motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration, allowing Aramark's ERISA fiduciary duty claims to proceed in court.
Keywords
ERISA, fiduciary duty, arbitration, equitable relief, Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Aetna Life Insurance Company, Aramark Services Inc., Master Services Agreement, court ruling.
Meta Tags
Meta Title: Court Denies Aetna's Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration in ERISA Fiduciary Duty Case
Meta Description: The Eastern District of Texas denied Aetna's motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration in a case filed by Aramark Services Inc. regarding alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA, allowing the claims to proceed in court.