Opinion
Civil Action 00-D-1327-N.
March 5, 2001.
J. Banks III, William Harris Morrow, Lighfoot Franklin White, Clifford W. Cleveland Colley For Plaintiffs.
Joseph E. Stott, Clark Stott For Alabama Hospitality Ass'n.
Thomas A Kendrick, Celeste K. Poteat, Norman, Wood, Kendrick Turner for Health Partners.
Stephen E. Whitehead, Jeffrey Neal Cotney, Lloyd, Gray Whitehead For Bennet Company.
ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiffs' Motion To Remand, which was filed October 27, 2000. Defendants filed separate Responses on November 14, 2000. After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant law, and the record as a whole, the court finds that the Motion is due to be denied.
I. DISCUSSION
A critical section of ERISA's definition of "employee welfare benefit plan" reads in the disjunctive. Put another way, for purposes of ERISA, an employee welfare benefit plan is any plan, fund, or program which was:
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, (a) medical, surgical, or hospital care or benefits, or benefits in the event of sickness, accident, disability, death or unemployment.29 U.S.C. § 1002(1) (emphasis supplied).
In enacting ERISA, Congress did not precisely speak to the issue of what constitutes an employee welfare benefit plan. Rather, Congress simply stated that a "multiple employer welfare arrangement," like the one that the court finds has been established by Defendant, may qualify.See id. § 1002(40)(A); see also Donovan v. Dillingham, 688 F.2d 1367, 1375 (11th Cir. 1982) (en banc) ("multiple employer trust" can constitute an employee welfare benefit plan).
The Department of Labor ("DOL") has exercised its delegated authority to define an "employee welfare benefit plan" by a process of exclusion.See 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-1(a)(i). According to DOL, a plan shall not include a group or group-type insurance program offered by an insurer to employees under which:
(1) No contributions are made by an employer or employee organization; (2) Participation [in] the program is completely voluntary for employees or members; (3) The sole functions of the employer or employee organization with respect to the program are, without endorsing the program, to permit the insurer to publicize the program to employees or members, to collect premiums through payroll deductions or dues checkoffs and to remit them to the insurer; and (4) The employer or employee organization receives no consideration in the form of cash or otherwise in connection with the program, other than reasonable compensation, excluding any profit, for administrative services actually rendered in connection with payroll deductions or dues checkoffs.Id. § 2510.3(j).
The court finds that DOL'S interpretation of ERISA is reasonable. See Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43(1984). Therefore, in deference to the agency, the court finds that a multiple employer welfare arrangement qualifies as an employee benefit plan unless it falls within the category of plans excluded by DOL's regulations. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. See Donovan, 688 F.2d at 1373 n. 11; Credit Manager's Ass'n of S. Cal. v. Kennesaw Life Acc. Ins. Co., 809 F.2d 617, 625 (9th Cir. 1987).
Furthermore, the court rejects Plaintiffs' argument that the Association is not governed by ERISA because Plaintiffs' employer played no role in the daily management of the plan. The cases cited by Plaintiffs either are inapposite or unpersuasive, for they have not followed Chevron's mandates for interpreting statutes under the Administrative Procedure Act. Cf. Albright v. Union Bankers Ins. Co., 85 F. Supp.2d 1302, 1305 (S.D. Fla. 1999) ("ERISA may apply to an Employee Welfare Benefit Plan, even though an employer's involvement in the plan is limited to the purchase of insurance."); Hall v. Municipal Employees Health Trust, 93 F. Supp.2d 73, 79 (D.Maine 2000) ("ERISA's definition of EWBP refers to a plan being "established or maintained," not established and maintained . . ."); Bonestroo v. Continental Life Acc. Co., 79 F. Supp.2d 1041, 1046 (N.D.Iowa 1999) ("There is no requirement under ERISA that the employer play any role in the administration of the plan any role in the administration of the plan in order for it to be deemed an employee welfare benefit plan.")
Accordingly, the court finds as follows: The AHA Plan qualifies as an ERISA "plan, fund or program." 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (1); 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3(j)(1). Plaintiffs' business is an employer that "established" the plan by writing the first check to purchase the policy and paying monthly premiums drafted on the company's account. See Randol v. Mid-West Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 987 F.2d 1547, 1551 (11th Cir. 1993); 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3(j)(1). The plan provided health benefits to Plaintiffs, who were participants in the plan, and could have determined from the surrounding circumstances the intended benefits, class of beneficiaries, source of financing, and procedures for receiving benefits. See Donovan, 688 F.2d at 1372. Plaintiffs' state law claims, which "relate to" their employee benefit plan, are preempted. See Whitt v. Sherman Int'l Corp., 147 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11th Cir. 1998); Robinson v. Fikes of Ala., Inc., 804 F. Supp. 277, 280 (M.D.Ala. 1992).
II. ORDER
It is CONSIDERED and ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion To Remand be and the same is hereby DENIED. Plaintiffs' requisite state law claims be and the same are hereby DISMISSED.