Case: 18-13173 Date Filed: 02/08/2019 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-13173
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:17-cv-80281-RLR
THERESA E. PEER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 8, 2019)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-13173 Date Filed: 02/08/2019 Page: 2 of 6
Theresa Peer filed suit against Liberty Life Assurance seeking life-insurance
benefits under her employee welfare benefit plan, which is governed by the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq.
Specifically, she sought both (1) a ruling enforcing the plan’s Waiver of Premium
provision—which permits a covered person who becomes “Totally Disabled”
while insured to remain eligible for coverage without paying premiums—and (2) a
declaration that she had provided sufficient information to Liberty to be deemed
Totally Disabled as defined by the terms of her plan. After Peer filed suit, Liberty
administratively reversed its earlier denial of Peer’s claim for her Waiver of
Premium benefit. Liberty approved the waiver and reinstated Peer’s policy
benefits retroactively such that there was no gap in coverage. In response to
Liberty’s motion for summary judgment, the district court dismissed as moot
Peer’s Waiver of Premium claim and, having done so, denied Peer’s motion.
Peer then filed an amended complaint asserting two counts, one of which
merely restated the Waiver of Premium claim that the district court had already
held to be moot, and the other of which sought an “adjudication as to whether and
how [Liberty] will handle her waiver of premium requests in the future.” After
dismissing the first count as controlled by its earlier decision, the district court then
granted Liberty judgment on the pleadings on the second count. It held that Peer’s
2
Case: 18-13173 Date Filed: 02/08/2019 Page: 3 of 6
request for declaratory relief regarding a future-benefits determination did not
present a live case or controversy and called for an advisory opinion.
Peer now appeals both the district court’s rejection of her Waiver of
Premium claim as moot and that court’s determination that her declaratory-
judgment claim regarding future premiums did not present a live case or
controversy.
We first address the denial of Peer’s Waiver of Premium claim. 1 Peer states
in her complaint—and reiterates on appeal—that she seeks a determination of life-
insurance coverage pursuant to the plan’s Waiver of Premium provision. But as
the district court correctly held, the claim is moot because Liberty reversed its
initial adverse benefits determination and reinstated Peer’s coverage. Accordingly,
Peer has already received the relief that she seeks, and “there is no further relief
that the Court can award [Peer] on her claim for an award of the Waiver of
Premium benefit.” See Pakovich v. Verizon LTD Plan,
653 F.3d 488, 492 (7th Cir.
2011) (holding that “[Plaintiff’s] benefit claim became moot when the Plan paid it
1
Having concluded that Peer’s Waiver of Premium claim was moot, the district court proceeded
to deny Liberty’s motion for summary judgment. We review the denial of a motion for summary
judgment—if deemed appealable following a final judgment—for an abuse of discretion. See
Wilson v. Attaway,
757 F.2d 1227, 1235 n.1 (11th Cir. 1985). We review de novo the issues of
mootness and standing. See Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet,
405 F.3d 964, 975 (11th Cir. 2005)
(citation omitted); Troiano v. Supervisor of Elections in Palm Beach Cty.,
382 F.3d 1276, 1282
(11th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).
3
Case: 18-13173 Date Filed: 02/08/2019 Page: 4 of 6
in full”). The district court did not err in denying Peer’s Waiver of Premium
claim; she had already received the benefit retroactively without a gap in coverage.
Peer next contends that the district court improperly dismissed—as failing to
present a live case or controversy—her request for a declaration of future benefits
under
29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) (providing that a beneficiary may bring a civil
action “to clarify [her] rights to future benefits”). She contends that Lamuth v.
Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co. supports the position that receipt of plan
benefits does not moot a claim for a declaration of future benefits.
30 F. Supp. 3d
1036 (W.D. Wash. 2014). In Lamuth, the plaintiff sought “a declaration as to
when she was first disabled … so as to avoid further conflict with regard to the
Pre-existing Conditions Limitation.” 2
Id. at 1047. Peer’s argument is different;
rather than seeking a post-administrative-review determination of when past
coverage was triggered, however, Peer requests a declaration as to her future
eligibility. Before that claim ripens, Peer must first be deemed not “Totally
Disabled” and that decision must then be administratively reviewed by Liberty.
See Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life Acc. Ins. Co.,
571 U.S. 99, 105 (2013) (“A
participant’s cause of action under ERISA … does not accrue until the plan issues
2
In Lamuth, the claimant sought “a declaratory ruling as to when she first became disabled under
the Policy” because the insurer “continu[ally] … reverse[d] its position on th[e] issue” through
the administrative review process and subsequent litigation. 30 F. Supp. 3d at 1038. The
claimant there requested a declaration on a claim “that had been exhausted and repeatedly
subject to dispute.” Id. at 1046. Peer, by contrast, seeks a declaration as to her future eligibility.
4
Case: 18-13173 Date Filed: 02/08/2019 Page: 5 of 6
a final denial.”). Absent an adverse benefits determination, there is no ripe claim
before us. As the district court observed, we “fail[] to see … how the Court may
adjudicate [Peer’s] disability status in the future.”
Finally, Peer asserts that “[t]he district court abused its discretion in failing
to apply judicial estoppel” to bar Liberty’s contention that the case-or-controversy
requirement precludes declaratory relief under
29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B).
“[D]istrict court[s] may apply judicial estoppel when a two-part test is satisfied.”
Slater v. United States Steel Corp.,
871 F.3d 1174, 1180 (11th Cir. 2017) (en
banc). Specifically, judicial estoppel may be appropriate when the party against
whom the doctrine is applied (1) has taken an inconsistent position from one staked
out in a separate proceeding and (2) “intended to make a mockery of the judicial
system.”
Id. In Sand-Smith v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, Peer claims,
Liberty removed a case from state to federal court when the claimant sought a
judicial declaration regarding an ERISA plan on the ground that the suit presented
a federal question over which the federal court had jurisdiction. See
2017 WL
4169430, at *2 (D. Mont. Sept. 20, 2017). Liberty’s acknowledgment that a
declaratory judgment regarding the ERISA plan in that case presented a justiciable
controversy does not trigger judicial estoppel here. Liberty has never contended
that all requests for judicial declarations are justiciable. Rather, it has consistently
argued that declarations are proper under ERISA so long as there is a live case or
5
Case: 18-13173 Date Filed: 02/08/2019 Page: 6 of 6
controversy between the parties. Whereas the claimant in Sand-Smith had suffered
an adverse benefits determination, see
id., Peer has not. 3 Moreover, and in any
event, we find no indication that Liberty is intending to make a mockery of the
judicial system. Peer’s judicial estoppel claim fails on both prongs.
We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
3
The same reasoning holds for the second case presented by Peer: In Vaccaro v. Liberty Life
Assurance Co. of Boston, the claimant appealed her benefits classification. The remainder of the
case was mooted when Liberty determined the claimant was disabled and awarded past-due
benefits. See Vaccaro v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston,
2017 WL 5564910 (N.D. Cal.,
Nov. 20, 2017).
6
