Did an ERISA Forum-Selection Clause Send This AD&D Benefits Dispute to Another Court? A Georgia District Court Says Yes.

In Hughes v. Truist Bank, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-04667-SDG, 2026 WL 1849942 (N.D. Ga. June 26, 2026), United States District Judge Steven D. Grimberg granted a motion to transfer an ERISA accidental death and dismemberment benefits dispute to the Western District of North Carolina based on a forum-selection clause in the plan documents, and the court enforced that clause even against defendants who never signed the agreement.

Plaintiff worked for Truist Bank and participated in its ERISA-governed Employee Benefit Plan. The Plan included an Accidental Death and Dismemberment policy issued by Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Co. and The Hartford Insurance Group, Inc. Plaintiff elected the maximum AD&D coverage, ten times his annual salary, for a Principal Sum of $830,000. After his wife died in May 2024, Plaintiff submitted an AD&D claim for the full Principal Sum but received only half, $415,000. He appealed the coverage decision through the internal administrative process without success and then filed suit against Truist, Hartford, and HIG.

What Did the ERISA Plan’s Forum-Selection Clause Require?

The Summary Plan Description contained a “Governing Law and Venue” provision stating that any legal action related to the Plan must be brought only in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina or a court situated in Charlotte, North Carolina. Truist moved to transfer the case there under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and the forum-selection clause. Plaintiff agreed that transfer was appropriate. Hartford and HIG opposed it.

Can a Forum-Selection Clause Bind Defendants Who Did Not Sign the Plan?

The court started from the general rule that a forum-selection clause can be enforced only by or against a party to the agreement. It then applied the “closely related” doctrine, an exception recognized by the Eleventh Circuit, which binds a non-signatory when the party is closely related to the dispute such that it becomes foreseeable it will be bound. Hartford and HIG opposed transfer largely because they were non-signatories to the SPD.

The court found both prongs satisfied. On the “closely related” inquiry, the court determined that all three defendants shared a clear interest in avoiding payment of the additional $415,000, and that Hartford and HIG’s interests were derivative of Truist’s. The court reasoned that had Truist not contracted with Hartford and HIG to issue the AD&D policy under the Plan, they would have no connection to the dispute. On the foreseeability inquiry, the court found it foreseeable that Hartford and HIG would be bound because the SPD expressly stated that it partly consisted of the Certificate of Insurance issued by Hartford and HIG, and both Hartford’s Secretary and President signed the AD&D Certificate. Because the Certificate formed a substantial part of the SPD and Hartford representatives signed it, the court concluded it was foreseeable the insurers would be bound by the Plan’s forum-selection clause, at least as to disputes related to the AD&D coverage.

What Did the Court Decide?

The court granted Truist’s motion to transfer the action to the Western District of North Carolina under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and denied without prejudice Truist’s alternative request for dismissal. The court concluded that the interest of justice favored transferring all claims rather than dividing them between two district courts, so it transferred the action in full. The court declined to rule on Hartford and HIG’s pending motion to dismiss, leaving that motion for the transferee court, and denied Plaintiff’s motion for oral argument as moot. The Clerk was directed to transfer the action.