Ronald Boyles, Jr. v. American Heritage Life Insuran ( 2020 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 19-2145
_____________
RONALD P. BOYLES, JR.,
Appellant
v.
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a ALLSTATE
BENEFITS, a/k/a ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK;
JEFFREY AZZATO; ST. MARYS INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.; UNUM LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a/k/a UNUM GROUP
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
District Court No. 3-15-cv-00274
District Judge: The Honorable Kim R. Gibson
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
June 18, 2020
Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, CHAGARES, and PORTER, Circuit Judges
(Filed: June 19, 2020)
_____________________
OPINION*
_____________________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does
not constitute binding precedent.
SMITH, Chief Judge.
After a series of back surgeries, Ronald P. Boyles, Jr. was left with lingering
health issues that eventually ended his employment relationship with St. Marys
Insurance Agency, Inc., and its president and co-owner, Jeffrey Azzato. Boyles tried
to secure disability benefits under two group insurance policies sponsored at
different times by St. Marys and issued by third-party insurers. The disability
insurers denied his claims.
Boyles sued St. Marys, Azzato, and the disability insurers. In the only two
counts at issue,1 Boyles alleged that St. Marys and Azzato breached fiduciary duties
owed to him under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA),
29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. The District Court granted summary judgment to those two
remaining defendants.2 Boyles v. Am. Heritage Life Ins. Co., 383 F. Supp. 3d 470
(W.D. Pa. 2019). We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the District Court
in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion.
1
To the extent Boyles preserved a third count, for respondeat superior liability
against St. Marys, we need not reach it based on our disposition of the fiduciary duty
claims.
2
ERISA provided the District Court with jurisdiction. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)–(f);
Mushalla v. Teamsters Local No. 863 Pension Fund, 300 F.3d 391, 395 (3d Cir.
2002). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the summary
judgment decision is de novo. Mushalla, 300 F.3d at 395.
2