In litigation involving competing claims to an employee's death benefits, a district court rejected an alleged domestic partner's attempt to demonstrate a domestic partner relationship using a declaration submitted after the death of the other purported domestic partner (that is, the decedent-employee) (Zaharopoulos v. Taylor, (M.D. Ga. Sept. 6, 2023)). The court therefore concluded that the employee's minor child was entitled to the death benefits.

This litigation arose after an employee was shot and killed, allegedly by her minor child. The decedent-employee was eligible for life insurance and accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) benefits under her employer's benefit plan but had failed to name a beneficiary for the death benefits. The employee was survived by a fiancé and a second minor child, both of whom submitted claims for the employee's death benefits. (The child who allegedly killed the employee renounced any claim to the death benefits.) Under an ordering rule for situations where no beneficiary was named, benefits were to be paid first to an employee's spouse/domestic partner, and if there was no spouse or domestic partner, then to the employee's children.

The governing plan terms permitted employees to prove a domestic partnership by either:

The second of these methods required an employee to file and sign a domestic partner declaration confirming a relationship between the employee and the employee's domestic partner (see Practice Notes, Domestic Partner Health Benefits and Providing Health Benefits to Domestic Partners).

The decedent-employee apparently did not complete a domestic partner declaration before her death. However, the decedent-employee's fiancé filed a claim for death benefits as the employee's domestic partner. In response to the claims administrator's request for a completed domestic partner declaration, the fiancé submitted a declaration that he completed and signed after the employee's death. A representative for the employee's minor child filed a competing claim for the death benefits, asserting that the employee:

The claims administrator initially determined that the fiancé was entitled to the death benefits (as an alleged domestic partner), but later reversed that decision. The administrator informed the fiancé by letter that the relevant Georgia jurisdiction did not recognize domestic partnerships. However, the administrator's claim denial letter did not address the plan's other requirements for evidencing a domestic partnership.

The fiancé then sued the administrator, who in turn filed an interpleader complaint asking the court to decide whether the fiancé or the minor child was entitled to benefits (see Practice Note, Interpleader (Federal)).

The district court analyzed the fiancé's claim by applying an ERISA standard of review that first required the court to consider de novo (that is, without deference to the administrator's decision) whether the administrator's decision was correct (see Practice Note, ERISA Litigation: Standard of Review and ERISA Litigation Toolkit). The court concluded that the administrator's decision was correct because the employee did not complete, sign, and submit a valid domestic partner declaration. As a result, the fiancé was not a domestic partner under the plan.

The court rejected the fiancé's various arguments for why the missing declaration should not defeat his claim to the death benefits. For example, the court disagreed with the fiancé's assertion that the administrator had failed to expressly base its claims denial on the missing declaration during the administrative process (meaning that the minor child's representative could not raise the declaration argument during litigation). The court reasoned that barring the representative from raising this issue would defeat the purpose of de novo judicial review—which required the court to review the outcome of the administrator's claims adjudication (as opposed to the administrator's rationale). In the court's view, the administrator's failure to completely explain its reasoning for denying the fiancé's claim was immaterial under the governing standard of review.

The court also rejected the fiancé's argument that his signature alone on the declaration was sufficient to establish the domestic partnership because he was also an employee of the same employer. (In other words, the fiancé argued, he was an employee in his own right for purposes of the plan's requirement that declarations be "signed by the employee.") Dismissing this argument, the court reasoned that the plan's signature requirement clearly referred to the decedent-employee—which would confirm her agreement to designate a domestic partner with an insurable interest. If the rule were otherwise, the court observed, any employee could potentially make benefit elections, change beneficiary designations, or carry out other changes on any other employee's behalf without the other employee's knowledge or consent.

The court therefore held that the decedent-employee was required to sign and submit the domestic partner declaration. Because the fiancé could not unilaterally designate himself as a domestic partner after the decedent-employee's death, he was not a domestic partner under the plan. This meant that the employee's minor child was entitled to the death benefits.

We don't see many cases involving domestic partner benefits these days, so this case is a good reminder of how the courts approach such disputes when called upon to do so. Clear plan terms and procedures governing domestic partner benefits can help avoid litigation altogether—or at least help a reviewing court more readily dispose of some claims. In particular, such litigation may depend on how a plan defines the term domestic partner—including related procedures for documenting domestic partnerships. Under such procedures (as this court notes in passing), many plans require domestic partner declarations to be completed and submitted as part of the benefits enrollment process (see New Employee Checklist for ERISA Health and Welfare Plans). As in this case, administrators and reviewing courts may also need to consider the role of state law in disputes over domestic partner benefits. Some plans, for example, require employees to establish domestic partnerships by registering with a state's government agency (if available).