Bjordal v. Hartford Life and Accident Ins. Co.

Background

Marit R. Bjordal sued Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company over Hartford’s denial of her claim for long-term disability benefits under an employer-sponsored plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Bjordal had worked as a pharmacist at Grand Itasca Hospital and Clinics and participated in the long-term disability plan sponsored by her employer and insured by Hartford. Her application for long-term disability benefits was denied on February 2, 2021, and her appeal of that denial was denied on October 1, 2021.

Bjordal moved to compel discovery, asking Hartford to produce documents including the entire policy, amendments, and certificates of insurance. She argued that discovery was needed to identify the complete and accurate plan documents and determine the proper standard of judicial review.

Magistrate Judge Leo Brisbois denied the motion. He concluded that the plan gave the administrator discretion to determine eligibility for benefits, meaning the court’s review would be limited to whether Hartford abused its discretion. He also concluded that Bjordal had not shown an exception allowing discovery beyond the administrative record. Bjordal appealed that order.

Standard of Review

The district court reviewed the magistrate judge’s nondispositive pretrial order under a highly deferential standard. It could reverse only if the order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

In an ERISA benefits case, courts generally review a benefits denial based only on the evidence before the plan administrator. Review is de novo—meaning independent review—unless the plan gives the administrator discretionary authority, in which case the court uses the more deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Courts generally do not permit additional discovery in these cases, although limited exceptions may apply, including when discovery is needed to determine the proper standard of review or resolve a dispute about what materials belong in the administrative record.

Analysis

The court rejected Bjordal’s argument that the administrative record lacked the original policy. It found that the document identified as Exhibit 5 was the policy at issue because it bore the correct policy number and described itself as the policy. Although the document stated that an amendment had been processed on January 31, 2020, it also stated that changes from the previously issued policy became effective January 1, 2020, while other terms and dates remained unchanged. The court therefore concluded that the policy had been produced.

The court also found that the case did not present the circumstances that had justified expanded discovery in another case involving two materially different policies, one authenticated and one unauthenticated. Here, the record contained a policy together with certificates of insurance incorporated into that policy. The court held that Bjordal had not shown that additional discovery was needed to resolve a dispute about the administrative record.

Bjordal separately argued that discovery was necessary to determine whether Minnesota Statutes section 60A.42 barred the policy’s discretionary provision. That statute prohibits certain disability policies issued or renewed in Minnesota after January 1, 2016, from giving the insurer discretion or using a standard less favorable than a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

The court held that the policy’s June 1, 2015 effective date preceded the statute’s relevant date and that the policy did not specify a renewal date. It concluded that the certificates’ different policy anniversary dates did not establish renewal dates. The court also noted that the certificates with differing dates were not part of the administrative record and that there was no other evidence of a renewal after January 1, 2016. Because the policy clearly granted discretionary authority and the record did not show a post-2016 renewal, the court held that review was limited to abuse of discretion and that Bjordal had not shown a need for expanded discovery.

Disposition

The court denied Bjordal’s appeal of the magistrate judge’s order denying her motion to compel discovery and affirmed the magistrate judge’s June 17, 2022 order.