Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in ERISA action seeking recovery of death benefits under supplemental life insurance policy offered by deceased’s employer. Plaintiff was named beneficiary under said policy that was otherwise covered by ERISA. Ct. rejected contention by defendant (deceased’s ex-wife) that said policy was not covered under ERISA because deceased had paid all premiums without any direct subsidy by his employer, where employer maintained substantial administrative functions associated with policy beyond very limited functions set forth in 29 USC section 2510.3-1(j). Also, Ct. noted that defendant had failed to proffer affidavits to support her contentions in response to summary judgment motion and had failed to challenge admissibility of plaintiff’s evidence attached to instant summary judgment motion.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
ERISA