Dual ERISA Limitations Periods Enforceable: No Conflict in Concurrent Deadlines
Introduction
J.H. and her son A.H. participated in an employer-sponsored, fully insured ERISA benefit plan administered by Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company. When Anthem denied coverage for A.H.’s year-long stay at a residential mental-health treatment center, the plaintiffs exhausted internal and external appeals but waited nearly two years after their final appeal decision to file suit. They brought a claim under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) for wrongful denial of benefits. The District Court dismissed the suit as time-barred under a one-year contractual limitations provision in the plan; the plaintiffs contended that a coexisting three-year provision created an ambiguity favoring the longer period. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding that both limitations periods applied concurrently and were not inconsistent or ambiguous.
Summary of the Judgment
The Tenth Circuit concluded, as a matter of de novo contract interpretation, that an ERISA plan may impose multiple, trigger-based limitations periods—here, a three-year deadline measured from “proof of loss” and a one-year deadline measured from the final ERISA appeal decision. Because each deadline operates independently and any suit filed after either deadline is barred, there is no conflict and no ambiguity calling for resolution in favor of the insured. The one-year provision clearly governed the plaintiffs’ § 502(a)(1)(B) action, which they filed eighteen months after their final appeal. Accordingly, the claim was time-barred and properly dismissed.
Analysis
Precedents Cited
- Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co. (571 U.S. 99, 2013) – Confirmed that ERISA plans may enforce reasonable contractual limitations periods; in the absence of a statutory limitations period, plan-specified deadlines govern.
- Salisbury v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co. (583 F.3d 1245, 10th Cir. 2009) – Held that plan language should be given its ordinary meaning to determine ambiguity; reasonable limits in ERISA contracts are enforceable.
- Miller v. Monumental Life Ins. Co. (502 F.3d 1245, 10th Cir. 2007) – Established that ambiguities in ERISA plan provisions are construed against the drafter (the insurer) when interpreting coverage or procedural requirements.
- Commonwealth Property Advocates, LLC v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (680 F.3d 1194, 10th Cir. 2011) – Articulated the de novo standard of review for motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), accepting all well-pleaded facts and central plan documents referenced in the complaint.
- E.W. v. Health Net Life Ins. Co. (86 F.4th 1265, 10th Cir. 2023) – Confirmed that district and appellate courts may consider ERISA plan documents integral to a benefit-denial claim even when reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.
Legal Reasoning
1. Contractual Freedom and Plan Interpretation: ERISA plans function as private contracts. Under Heimeshoff, courts enforce reasonable limitations periods as written. The central question was whether the coexistence of a three-year “proof of loss” deadline and a one-year ERISA appeal deadline created an inconsistency or ambiguity.
2. No Conflict, Both Deadlines Apply: The plan’s “Legal Actions” section imposed two discrete conditions precedent to suit:
- “No action . . . may be started later than three years from the time written proof of loss is required.”
- “If you bring a civil action under Section 502(a) of ERISA, you must bring it within one year of the grievance or appeal decision.”
3. Ambiguity Analysis: Under Salisbury and Miller, a plan is ambiguous if it is “reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning.” Interpreting the two deadlines as cumulative conditions yields a single coherent system: plaintiffs must satisfy both. Because the language is plain and yields a workable rule (suit barred if either period lapses), it is not ambiguous.
4. Application to This Case: A.H.’s internal and external appeals concluded in October 2021. The one-year window for § 502(a) suits expired in October 2022. The plaintiffs filed in July 2023—past the ERISA-specific deadline—so their claim was time-barred irrespective of the three-year proof-of-loss deadline.
Impact
This decision clarifies that ERISA-governed plans may concurrently prescribe multiple, event-triggered limitations periods without creating ambiguity. Benefit plans often contain general deadlines (e.g., proofs of loss) and ERISA-specific windows for federal court review. J.H. v. Anthem confirms that covered persons must heed both, and that courts will enforce the earliest expiring deadline. Future plan drafters can continue to include layered time limits; plan participants must track all applicable triggers to preserve their right to sue.
Complex Concepts Simplified
- ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) Claim: A federal cause of action allowing a participant or beneficiary to sue for benefits due or to enforce plan terms.
- Statute of Limitations vs. Statute of Repose: A statute of limitations begins when a claim accrues (e.g., injury or denial); a statute of repose runs from a fixed past event (e.g., plan creation or proof-of-loss deadline). Both can apply, and the earlier expiring bar controls.
- De Novo Review: On a motion to dismiss, courts accept all well-pleaded facts as true and interpret plan language objectively, considering documents integral to the claim.
- Ambiguity in Contract Law: Only if a reasonable person could interpret a provision in two or more ways does ambiguity exist; in ERISA, any ambiguity in plan language is construed against the drafter (the insurer).
Conclusion
J.H. v. Anthem reinforces three key principles in ERISA benefits litigation:
- Plans may impose multiple, trigger-based limitations periods without generating conflict;
- Court enforcement will honor each deadline as a separate condition barring suit if missed; and
- Where plan language is clear, there is no need to favor a longer period—even if a shorter period applies to a specific type of claim.
Comments