Indiana District Court Rejects Equitable Tolling of ERISA Life Insurance Conversion Deadlines for Incapacity

When a loved one becomes incapacitated, the last thing on anyone’s mind is navigating the fine print of employee benefit plans. Yet, as a recent decision from the Northern District of Indiana illustrates, strict plan deadlines can have devastating consequences—even in the most sympathetic circumstances.

On August 15, 2025, Judge Cristal C. Brisco ruled in Presnal Jr, et al. v. Dearborn National Life Insurance Company, No. 3:23-CV-290-CCB, 2025 WL 2390485 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 15, 2025), that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) does not permit equitable tolling of a life insurance plan’s conversion deadline due to the participant’s mental incapacity. The decision adds to a growing body of case law holding that conversion deadlines are contractual terms, not limitations periods, and thus not subject to judicial extension.

The plaintiff’s wife served as Director of Nursing at Beacon Health System and participated in its ERISA-governed group life insurance plan, funded by Dearborn National. Under the plan, employees had to be “actively at work” (35+ hours per week) to maintain coverage. Upon termination, they could convert coverage to an individual policy within 31 days—extended to 91 days if they were not provided notice of their conversion rights.

Ms. Presnal’s employment ended December 31, 2016. Beacon failed to notify her of her conversion rights, giving her until spring 2017 to convert. She did not do so, and the group policy ultimately lapsed. Ms. Presnal died in December 2021. Her surviving spouse sought benefits, arguing that her deteriorating health and alleged incapacity should have tolled the conversion deadline. Dearborn denied the claim, leading to litigation

The Court’s Reasoning: No Tolling for Plan Terms

Initially, the case survived a motion to dismiss on the theory that incapacity might constitute an “extraordinary circumstance” warranting equitable tolling. But on summary judgment, the court revisited that issue and sided with Dearborn.

Relying heavily on the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Hayes v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 60 F.4th 848 (4th Cir. 2023), the court concluded that conversion deadlines are eligibility conditions, not statutes of limitations. Equitable tolling, the court explained, has historically been applied to filing deadlines for claims or lawsuits—not to contractual terms that define whether coverage exists in the first place.

Judge Brisco also emphasized ERISA’s framework: § 1132(a)(1)(B) allows beneficiaries to enforce a plan “as written,” not rewrite its terms. Because the Presnal estate sought compensatory benefits under a policy that had lapsed and did not plead a claim for equitable relief under § 1132(a)(3) or show any ERISA violation, their claim failed as a matter of law.

Takeaway: Conversion Deadlines Are Firm—Even in Hard Cases

This decision reinforces that courts are unlikely to extend ERISA plan conversion deadlines—even for participants incapacitated during the conversion period. For plan sponsors and insurers, Presnal underscores the importance of clearly defining conversion rights and adhering to them. For beneficiaries and their counsel, it is a cautionary tale:

• Act quickly on conversion rights—do not rely on equitable doctrines to save late claims.
• Consider equitable relief under § 1132(a)(3) if there is a genuine violation of ERISA or plan terms.
• Counsel clients proactively when employment ends due to serious illness or disability.

In short, under ERISA, the courts will enforce plan deadlines as written. While this may feel harsh in cases involving incapacity, unless Congress or the plan itself provides otherwise, those deadlines remain unyielding.