ANSWER: “Only the designated plan administrator—as named in the governing plan documents—can be subject to penalties.”
BACKGROUND: Nicole Mayor requested plan documents from both MetLife and Union Pacific’s HR department. She alleges that neither provided her with the governing policy. Mayor sued under ERISA, asserting (1) failure to provide plan documents under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c) and (2) wrongful denial of benefits.
SOURCE: Roberts Disability Law, P.C.
District of Utah Confirms Only Named Plan Administrator May Face § 1132(c) Penalties
In Mayor v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., itself & as administrator of Union Pac. Corp. Nonagreement Life Ins. Plan 0149653, et al., No. 1:25-CV-00012-DBB-DAO, 2025 WL 3251356 (D. Utah Nov. 21, 2025), the District of Utah addressed whether a claims administrator may be held liable for statutory penalties under ERISA § 1132(c) for failing to provide plan documents. The court reaffirmed the Tenth Circuit’s strict interpretation of § 1132(c), holding that only the designated plan administrator—as named in the governing plan documents—can be subject to penalties. Because the complaint identified Union Pacific officers as the plan administrators, and MetLife acted only as a claims administrator and alleged agent, the court dismissed the § 1132(c) claim against MetLife.
Background
Nicole Mayor sought life and accidental death benefits as the beneficiary of her late husband’s Union Pacific–sponsored life and AD&D coverage. After MetLife denied the AD&D claim based on a policy exclusion, she requested plan documents from both MetLife and Union Pacific’s HR department. She alleges that neither provided her with the governing policy.
Mayor sued under ERISA, asserting (1) failure to provide plan documents under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c) and (2) wrongful denial of benefits. MetLife moved to dismiss the § 1132(c) claim.
Issue
Can MetLife—acting as a claims administrator and alleged agent of the plan administrator—be held liable for statutory penalties under § 1132(c) for failing to provide plan documents?
Court’s Analysis
- Only the plan administrator is liable under § 1132(c).
The court reaffirmed well-established Tenth Circuit precedent that:
- § 1132(c) authorizes penalties only against the “administrator” designated in the plan documents.
- The Tenth Circuit does not recognize “de facto” administrators.
- Agency principles do not expand statutory liability to an administrator’s agents; liability remains solely with the named administrator.
- Plaintiff’s own allegations identified Union Pacific officers—not MetLife—as the plan administrator.
Mayor’s complaint explicitly alleges:
- Union Pacific executives Whited and Perkes served as plan administrators.
- MetLife acted only as an agent that allegedly agreed to pay penalties on the administrator’s behalf.
The court held that—even accepting all allegations as true—MetLife cannot be liable under § 1132(c).
- “Agency” theory cannot create statutory liability.
Even if MetLife handled document requests as the plan administrator’s agent, the statute does not impose penalties on agents. At most, an agent’s misconduct may be imputed to the plan administrator—not the other way around.
Holding
The court granted MetLife’s motion to dismiss the § 1132(c) document-penalty claim.
The benefits-denial claim remains pending.
Key Takeaway for ERISA Practitioners
This decision reinforces the Tenth Circuit’s strict approach to § 1132(c):
- Only the entity formally designated in plan documents as the “plan administrator” may be sued for document penalties.
- Claims administrators—no matter how involved in day-to-day operations—are not liable, and plaintiffs cannot use agency theories or alleged contractual arrangements to impose § 1132(c) penalties on them.
This case serves as another reminder to scrutinize plan documents early: the identity of the named administrator is dispositive for § 1132(c) claims.
SHARE THIS POST:facebooktwittershop
*Please note that this blog is a summary of a reported legal decision and does not constitute legal advice. This blog has not been updated to note any subsequent change in status, including whether a decision is reconsidered or vacated. The case above was handled by other law firms, but if you have questions about how the developing law impacts your ERISA benefit claim, the attorneys at Roberts Disability Law, P.C. may be able to advise you so please contact us.
Sign Up to Get Our Monthly ERISA Circuit Review
Post Author
Michelle L. Roberts
ERISA Litigation Attorney
Categories
Select Category Accidental Death Benefits Attorney’s Fees Benefits Interference Blog Case Outcomes Defined Contribution Plans ERISA ESOPs Executive Compensation Fiduciaries Health Care Reform Health Insurance Life Insurance Long Term Care Claims Long Term Disability Pension Plans Press Releases Retirement Claims SERP And Other Executive Deferred Compensation Claims Severance Short Term Disability Supplemental Retirement Plans
Archives
Select Month November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 February 2014 November 2013 October 2010
Need Legal Help?
Call Us Today! We Can Help.
Posts You May Also Like
25Nov 2025
District of Utah Confirms Only Named Plan Administrator May Face § 1132(c) Penalties
24Nov 2025
Eleventh Circuit Rules MetLife Properly Terminated Attorney’s Disability Benefits
