You're viewing Docket Item 1 from the case Esch v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




CASE 0:13-cv-02571-PJS-SER Document 1 Filed 09/19/13 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Ruth Esch,

vs.

Plaintiff,

Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada,

Defendant.

Case No.

COMPLAINT

Comes now the Plaintiff, and for her cause of action against the Defendant, states and

alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION

1. Jurisdiction is conferred under 29 U.S.C. §1132 (e) as Plaintiff’s claim is governed

by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), 29 U.S.C.

§1001 et seq.

2. Plaintiff is a Minnesota resident.

PARTIES

3. Defendant, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, is an insurance company that is

licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota.

FACTS

4. At all times material herein the Plaintiff was employed by Ace Communications.

5. Ace Communications maintained an employee benefit plan and Plaintiff was a

participant in that plan for long-term disability.

CASE 0:13-cv-02571-PJS-SER Document 1 Filed 09/19/13 Page 2 of 3

6. Ace Communications’s long-term disability plan underwrote and funded its liabilities

under the long-term disability (LTD) plan with a policy of insurance underwritten and provided

by Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada.

7. Defendant Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (“Sun Life”) is a fiduciary under

the Plan.

8. That as a result of various physical disabilities the Plaintiff qualified for disability

benefits under the LTD Plan and Sun Life’s policy and continues to be disabled.



9. Plaintiff properly made claims for benefits under the Defendant’s policy, but

Defendant denied her LTD claim for further benefits on September 12, 2013 following an

administrative appeal on June 17, 2013.

10. The decision to deny the LTD benefits is in violation of the Plan, a violation of

ERISA, and a violation of the fiduciary duties owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

11. That as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has

sustained damages based on benefits due under the Plan.

12. That as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has been

forced to incur costs and attorney’s fees and, under the terms of ERISA, is entitled to be

reimbursed by the Defendant for said fees and costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against the Defendant granting her the

following relief:

1. Ordering Defendant to pay Plaintiff all benefits due under the LTD Plan.

2. Awarding Plaintiff prejudgment interest on the amount of benefits due.

3. Awarding Plaintiff costs and attorney’s fees incurred in bringing this proceeding.

4. Granting Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and

equitable.



2

CASE 0:13-cv-02571-PJS-SER Document 1 Filed 09/19/13 Page 3 of 3

Dated: September 19, 2013

NOLAN, THOMPSON & LEIGHTON

By /s/ Robert J. Leighton

Robert J. Leighton (#220735)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
5001 American Boulevard W.
595 Southgate Office Plaza
Bloomington, MN 55437
Phone: (952) 405-7171
Fax:
(952) 224-0647
Email: [email protected]

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The undersigned hereby acknowledges that costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney

and witness fees may be awarded to the opposing party or parties pursuant to Minn. Stat.
§549.211, subd. 2, if this pleading is filed in bad faith.

/s/ Robert J. Leighton

Robert J. Leighton

3