N.D. Georgia Holds ERISA § 502(a)(3) Claim Duplicative of Benefits Claim and Finds Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Preempted

In Atkins v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, No. 1:25-CV-2912-TWT, 2026 WL 280492 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 3, 2026), and ERISA life insurance dispute, the plaintiff—acting as the surviving spouse and administrator of his late wife’s estate—alleged that she remained entitled to life insurance coverage through her employer’s plan after she stopped working due to serious illness. The plaintiff contended that the plan contained a “death benefit” provision that waived premiums during total disability, and that the employer and insurer failed to ensure she received the benefit of that protection.

According to the allegations, the decedent stopped working in December 2022 after being diagnosed with ovarian cancer and later received approved disability leave. She remained associated with the employer until her employment was formally terminated in August 2024. The plaintiff claimed that, during this period, the employer and claims administrator “lulled” her into believing her full coverage remained in place through benefit statements and communications, while failing to adequately inform her of proof requirements needed to extend the premium waiver.

The complaint asserted (1) a benefits claim against Prudential under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), (2) an alternative breach of fiduciary duty claim for equitable relief against both Prudential and the employer under ERISA § 502(a)(3), and (3) an alternative state-law negligent misrepresentation claim against the employer.

The court granted the employer’s motion to dismiss. First, it dismissed the ERISA § 502(a)(3) claim because the only harm identified—unpaid benefits/coverage—was the same harm pursued under the § 502(a)(1)(B) benefits claim. The court reiterated that § 502(a)(3) is meant to function as a “gap-filler” remedy and is not available where ERISA’s benefits provision already provides an adequate route for relief.

Second, the court held that the negligent misrepresentation claim was preempted by ERISA because it “related to” the employee benefit plan and was based on alleged misrepresentations about the scope and timing of coverage under the plan. The court emphasized that adjudicating the claim would require interpreting plan terms and duties tied directly to ERISA plan administration. It also rejected the plaintiff’s reliance on cases involving misrepresentations made during the sale of insurance coverage, finding those situations meaningfully different from alleged misstatements made by a plan fiduciary during ongoing plan administration.

As a result, the court dismissed the claims against the employer and terminated it from the case, leaving the benefits claim against Prudential as the remaining path for recovery.