Treasurer, Trustees of Drury Ind. v. Goding, et al., No. 11-2885 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseDefendant Goding was a beneficiary of an Employee Retirement Insurance Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., Plan administered by Drury. Goding sustained injuries in a slip and fall accident and received benefits from the Drury-administered Plan, as well as compensation through the settlement of a civil suit related to those injuries. Pursuant to a subrogation provision in the ERISA Plan, Drury attempted to secure reimbursement from Goding for the benefits it paid but was unable to do so after Goding declared bankruptcy. Drury then attempted to obtain that reimbursement from the firm that represented Goding. The court affirmed the district court's finding that Drury could not obtain such reimbursement because the firm had not agreed to the Plan's subrogation provision and consequently was not contractually bound by it; Drury could not maintain a suit against the firm in equity and could not bring a state cause of action for conversion against the firm; and the firm should be awarded attorneys' fees for successful defense of a subsequent motion.
Court Description: Civil case - ERISA. District court did not abuse its discretion in granting Drury permission to file a late notice of appeal where its attorney made an error in calculating the filing deadline and there was no evidence of bad faith or prejudice to appellee; employee's law firm's knowledge of subrogation provision did not create an implied contract between the law firm and Drury where the firm did not make promise to take any action to enforce the agreement or assure that the employee abided by it; because the law firm dispersed to the employee the funds in which Drury claims an interest, any action to recover the money from the firm is legal not equitable, and legal actions are not permitted under section 502(a)(3) of the Act; claim for conversion of the funds is preempted by ERISA; under ERISA, an award of attorneys' fees is permitted where an attorney represents his own firm; district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the firm's request for attorneys' fees for expenses associated with Drury's motion for reconsideration.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.