MICHAEL E. NEUBAUER, INCOMPETENT, BY AND THROUGH JAMES L. NEUBAUER AND JANET L. NEUBAUER, GUARDIANS OF HIS PROPERTY, APPELLANTS,
v.
SAFECO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court reversed a dismissal order, finding that the lower court likely had subject matter jurisdiction. The court remanded the case, allowing the appellee to renew its motion to dismiss for specific counts while acknowledging jurisdiction for others.
The appellate court held that no showing was made below that ERISA preempted the circuit court's subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that the trial court clearly has subject matter jurisdiction as to counts 2-4 of the complaint.
[1] A dismissal order is reversed and remanded when the appellee confesses error and no showing was made that the circuit court's subject matter jurisdiction was preempted by…
[2] A party may renew a motion to dismiss and submit proofs to establish ERISA preemption as to specific counts of a complaint, even after a prior reversal.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The final order of dismissal under review is reversed, pursuant to the appellee’s confession of error, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings upon a holding that on this record no showing was made below that the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the instant action was preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, [ERISA], 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1381.”
Establishes the court's decision to reverse the dismissal and the primary reason for doing so.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants, guardians of an incompetent individual, sued Safeco Life Insurance Company. The trial court dismissed the action, presumably due to pr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Erisa Preemption cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final order of dismissal under review is reversed, pursuant to the appellee’s confession of error, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings upon a holding that on this record no showing was made below that the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the instant action was preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, [ERISA], 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1381. This reversal, however, shall be without prejudice to the appellee to renew its motion to dismiss as to count I of the complaint and submit whatever proofs it deems necessary to show that the circuit court lacks subject matter jurisdiction as to that count under the above federal act. We conclude, however, that as to counts 2-4 of the complaint the trial court clearly has subject matter jurisdiction under the above federal act — a conclusion which the appellee, in effect; concedes upon this appeal. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B); 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1)1; see Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 107 S.Ct. 1549, 1556, 95 L.Ed.2d 39, 51 (1987); accord Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 146-47, 105 S.Ct. 3085, 3092, 87 L.Ed.2d 96, 106 (1985).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
. Section 1132(e)(1) of ERISA provides:
“(e) Jurisdiction
(1) Except for actions under subsection (a)(1)(B) of this section, the district courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions under this subchapter brought by the Secretary or by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary. State courts of competent jurisdiction and district courts of the United States shall have concurrent jurisdiction of actions under subsection (a)(1)(B) of this section."
Emphasis supplied.
Section 1132(a)(1)(B) provides that:
"(a) Persons empowered to bring a civil action
A civil action may be brought—
(1) by a participant or beneficiary—
(B) to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1987)
- Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134 (U.S. 1985)