Unpublished Disposition, 908 F.2d 976 (9th Cir. 1990)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Herbert H. Fischer appeals from the district court's order of summary judgment. We affirm.

The sole question before us is whether a group insurance policy administered by United Chambers Administrators (UCA) covering Fischer as an employee of South Coast Diamonds, Ltd., was an employee welfare benefit plan for purposes of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq.

We review a summary judgment de novo, Hydrostorage v. Northern Cal. Boilermakers, 891 F.2d 719, 726 (9th Cir. 1989), under the same standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 that guide the district court. Rutledge v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 859 F.2d 732, 734 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, drawing inferences in the light most favorable to appellant, we agree with the district court that no rational trier of fact could find for appellant. See Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

It is undisputed that Fischer's employer " [a]s part of its employee benefits package ... created and provided a welfare plan ... to employee participants." The employer's establishment and maintenance of the plan meet ERISA requirements under 29 U.S.C. § 1002(a).

The plan is administered for the employer by United Chambers Administrators, Inc., and is summarized in the United Chambers Insured Plans Group Insurance Certificate Booklet. The Summary Plan Description (SPD) notes that the SPD "contains information required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974," and informs participants that they "are entitled to certain rights and protections under [ERISA]," detailing the ERISA entitlements.

Fischer has brought forward no relevant issues of fact to rebut appellees' showing that this is an ERISA plan. Fischer asserts that his employer merely paid premiums on the policy, and did not engage in direct administration. But the fact that an employer's administrative role is "minor and ministerial" does not prevent the plan from qualifying as an ERISA plan. Kanne v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 859 F.2d 96, 99 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1002(5)).

Fischer also alleges that the employer did not intend to create an ERISA plan. Our analysis, however, does not focus on subjective intent, but on the establishment and structure of the plan, and on whether "a reasonable person ... [could] 'ascertain the intended benefits, beneficiaries, source of financing, and procedures for receiving benefits.' " Scott v. Gulf Oil Corp., 754 F.2d 1499, 1504 (9th Cir. 1985) (quoting Donovan v. Dillingham, 688 F.2d 1367, 1373 (11th Cir. 1982) (en banc). The United Chambers plan meets the ERISA standards.

AFFIRMED.