GEICO faces revived class action following court reversal

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled in favor of captive insurance agents looking to go after GEICO via a class action.

The appeals court said in its opinion: “GEICO classified James Moyer and other captive insurance agents as independent contractors and did not let them receive the full slate of benefits it provided its corporate employees. The agents sued. They claim that GEICO was violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by misclassifying them and denying them benefits.

“The benefits-plan documents are integral to the plaintiffs’ claims but were not attached to the complaint. So the district court ordered the parties to provide the relevant plan documents. GEICO submitted documents that, according to one of its executives, governed the dispute.

“The agents resisted and argued that the district court could not rely on them in deciding GEICO’s motion to dismiss. The court disagreed, relied on the documents, and dismissed the complaint. Because there are legitimate questions about whether the documents that GEICO provided are a full set of the relevant, governing plan documents, we reverse and remand.”

It was pointed out that the district court relied on a plan summary instead of referring to GEICO’s actual profit-sharing plan.

“The district court erred by relying on the plan summary because there was a factual question about its authenticity and, in any event, the district court should have looked to the plan itself,” the appeals court stated. “GEICO has not provided complete records for the plan itself either.”

The opinion also indicated: “Nor did GEICO submit all documents relevant to its consolidated welfare plan… In the end, we are not convinced that the current record accurately shows how the profit-sharing and consolidated welfare plans changed between 2017 and 2023.

“There is a factual question about whether the record includes each amendment to the profit-sharing and consolidated welfare plans from that period. So the district court could not rely on the contents of the plans (or the plan summaries) to dismiss the amended complaint.”

The amended complaint, which added four named plaintiffs in 2023 (originally, only Moyer was named), was seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages.

What do you think about this story? Share your thoughts in the comments below.