Shotgun Pleadings and ERISA Disability Claims: Northern District of Georgia Dismisses Complaint Against Hartford and Allsup With Leave to Replead

In Isoviv v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company, No. 1:25-CV-5865-TWT, 2026 WL 1760334 (N.D. Ga. June 18, 2026), United States District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. granted Allsup, LLC’s motion to dismiss and, on its own initiative, dismissed Plaintiff’s entire complaint as a shotgun pleading. The dismissal was without prejudice, and the court gave Plaintiff fourteen days to file an amended complaint. The decision is a reminder that even a well-grounded ERISA long-term disability claim can stall at the pleading stage when the complaint does not clearly separate its claims and identify which defendant each claim is brought against.

What ERISA disability dispute was behind the lawsuit?

Plaintiff worked as a houseware coordinator and participated in her employer’s long-term disability plan, which Hartford insured and administered. Plaintiff became disabled in mid-2022 due to an intervertebral lumbar disc disorder, and Hartford initially approved benefits at $2,424.40 per month, sixty percent of her average monthly earnings. While receiving benefits, Plaintiff applied for Social Security disability benefits with the assistance of Allsup, a nationwide representative that Hartford had recommended. After the Social Security Administration approved those benefits, Hartford reduced its monthly payment to $824.40 to offset the Social Security award. Allsup then transmitted the full overpayment of $23,520.00 to Hartford from Plaintiff’s bank account. Roughly three months later, Hartford terminated Plaintiff’s long-term disability benefits, and Hartford affirmed that termination after Plaintiff’s pro se administrative appeal.

Why did the court dismiss the complaint as a shotgun pleading?

The court found that the complaint violated three of the four categories of shotgun pleadings recognized by the Eleventh Circuit in Weiland v. Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015). First, each of the four counts re-alleged nearly all preceding paragraphs, so that each count carried everything before it. Second, the complaint was replete with conclusory and immaterial facts not connected to any particular cause of action, leaving it unclear what relief Plaintiff sought in each count. Third, the complaint asserted claims against multiple defendants without specifying which defendant was responsible for which acts. The court observed that Plaintiff had presented “a box of parts” and expected the court to build the claim “without providing an instruction manual.” Because resolving Allsup’s motion would have required the court to rewrite the complaint into an intelligible document, the court dismissed it sua sponte under its inherent authority to control its docket.

Did the court decide whether Hartford wrongly terminated benefits or whether Allsup breached a duty?

No. The court reached neither the merits of the ERISA termination claim against Hartford nor the merits of the state law breach of fiduciary duty claim against Allsup. Plaintiff clarified in her opposition brief that the only claim against Allsup was a state law fiduciary claim and that she asserted no ERISA claim against Allsup, and she identified for the first time which state law that claim arose under. The court declined to consider those clarifications, applying the settled rule that “[a] complaint may not be amended by briefs in opposition to a motion to dismiss.” Any clarification, the court held, had to appear in the complaint itself.

What happens next for the ERISA claim?

The dismissal was without prejudice, and the court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within fourteen days remedying the pleading defects. The court warned that if Plaintiff does not file a timely amended complaint, the dismissal will convert to one with prejudice. The court also noted the Eleventh Circuit’s rule requiring district courts to give a litigant one opportunity to cure shotgun pleading defects before dismissal becomes final.