Kreimeier v. Interstate Power Company, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 22401 (7th Cir. Aug. 28, 2000) (unpublished)-Kreimeier, as executor for the estate of his father Milton Kreimeier, sued for medical benefits. Interstate funded a plan that provided retirees with medical benefits. Interstate is the plan administrator, and SISCO is the third party claims administrator.
Kreimeier submitted claims for skilled nursing care and the plan paid only part of the claims. Kreimeier sued. Interstate alleged that it was not the proper defendant, and moved for summary judgment. The district court agreed that Interstate was not the proper defendant, and noted that, although SISCO did not move for summary judgment on this basis, SISCO was also not a proper defendant and granted summary judgment in SISCO’s favor.
On appeal, Interstate asserted that it was not a proper defendant, and was entitled to summary judgment. SISCO disputed Kreimeier's contentions, but did not address whether it was a proper defendant. Kreimeier did not address the proper defendant issue. At oral argument, Kreimeier explained that the district court did not rely on this fact in granting summary judgment, that only one defendant raised the issue, and that if this Court chose to rely on that theory, he believed he could proceed against the defendant who did not raise this issue in the district court.
ERISA permits suits to recover benefits against only the plan. Riordan v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 128 F.3d 549, 551 (7th Cir. 1997). Neither Interstate nor SISCO was a proper defendant. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Interstate since it was not the proper defendant. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of SISCO for the same reason. A district court may sua sponte enter summary judgment in favor of a non-moving defendant if the motion raised by the first defendant is equally effective in barring the claim against the other defendant, and the plaintiff had an adequate opportunity to oppose the motion.
