Madera, et al v. Corporate Solutions

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should
not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in
5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 2, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-11470
Summary Calendar
ELBERT M. MADERA, also known as Jack Madera; SUE MADERA
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
CORPORATE SOLUTIONS, INC.
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas
(USDC No. 3:03-cv-1305)
_________________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*1
Reviewing the grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee de novo, we
affirm for the following reasons:

-- 1 of 2 --

1. “ERISA does not preempt state law claims when the claims ‘affect only [an
employee’s] employer/employee relationship with [an employer] and not her
administrator/beneficiary relationship with the company.” Rokohl v. Texaco, Inc.,
77 F.3d 126, 129 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing cases) (emphasis in original). The
distinction appellants seek to draw between 1) the unpaid ERISA benefits and 2)
medical expenses which arose after the discovery of the alleged negligent
procurement does not help appellant. Some, if not all, of the damages arising
under the former are necessarily encompassed by the latter. The district court
properly concluded that the negligence claim was conflict preempted under ERISA
§ 514.
2. ERISA § 502 (a)(2) allows a beneficiary to sue for breach of fiduciary duty.
ERISA also requires fiduciaries to discharge their duties “solely in the interest of
the participants and beneficiaries[,]” using “care, skill, prudence, and diligence.”
29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1). The appellants’ negligent procurement of the failed
insurer allegation is covered by this language.
3. For the reasons stated by the district court, summary judgment was properly
granted in favor of the appellee.
Affirmed.

-- 2 of 2 --