Vivian Dietz-Clark v. Hdr. Inc. , 696 F. App'x 844 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    AUG 29 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    VIVIAN DIETZ-CLARK,                              No. 15-35889
    Plaintiff-Appellant,               D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00035-JWS
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    HDR, INC.; HDR LTD INC. PLAN;
    UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE
    INSURANCE CO.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Alaska
    John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted August 15, 2017
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Vivian Dietz-Clark appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil
    enforcement action under section 502 of ERISA, 
    29 U.S.C. § 1132
    , for failure to
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    exhaust administrative remedies. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and
    we affirm.
    The district court properly declined to apply Alaska’s notice-prejudice rule
    to the administrative appeals deadline here. First, because Alaska’s notice-
    prejudice rule is not limited to state insurance law, see Long v. Holland Am. Line
    Westours, Inc., 
    26 P.3d 430
    , 435-36 (Alaska 2001) (applying rule to contractual
    limitations restricting personal injury claims resulting from certain tour-related
    accidents), the rule does not meet the ERISA definition of state regulation of
    insurance necessary to avoid ERISA preemption, 
    29 U.S.C. § 1144
    (b)(2)(A).
    ERISA preemption therefore applies. See UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Ward, 
    526 U.S. 358
    , 368 (1999) (holding that California’s notice-prejudice rule is not subject
    to ERISA preemption because the rule “is directed specifically at the insurance
    industry and is applicable only to insurance contracts” (citation and internal
    quotation marks omitted)).
    Second, even assuming that Alaska’s notice-prejudice rule is not subject to
    ERISA preemption, such a rule typically applies only to initial denial of benefits.
    There is no case applying Alaska law that has extended the rule to administrative
    appeal deadlines like the one here.
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-35889

Citation Numbers: 696 F. App'x 844

Judges: Clifton, Graber, Smith

Filed Date: 8/29/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024