Ronald Boyles, Jr. v. American Heritage Life Insuran, No. 19-2145 (3d Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 19-2145 _____________ RONALD P. BOYLES, JR., Appellant v. AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a ALLSTATE BENEFITS, a/k/a ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK; JEFFREY AZZATO; ST. MARYS INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.; UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a/k/a UNUM GROUP On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania District Court No. 3-15-cv-00274 District Judge: The Honorable Kim R. Gibson Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) June 18, 2020 Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, CHAGARES, and PORTER, Circuit Judges (Filed: June 19, 2020) _____________________ OPINION* _____________________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. SMITH, Chief Judge. After a series of back surgeries, Ronald P. Boyles, Jr. was left with lingering health issues that eventually ended his employment relationship with St. Marys Insurance Agency, Inc., and its president and co-owner, Jeffrey Azzato. Boyles tried to secure disability benefits under two group insurance policies sponsored at different times by St. Marys and issued by third-party insurers. The disability insurers denied his claims. Boyles sued St. Marys, Azzato, and the disability insurers. In the only two counts at issue,1 Boyles alleged that St. Marys and Azzato breached fiduciary duties owed to him under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. The District Court granted summary judgment to those two remaining defendants.2 Boyles v. Am. Heritage Life Ins. Co., 383 F. Supp. 3d 470 (W.D. Pa. 2019). We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the District Court in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion. 1 To the extent Boyles preserved a third count, for respondeat superior liability against St. Marys, we need not reach it based on our disposition of the fiduciary duty claims. 2 ERISA provided the District Court with jurisdiction. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)–(f); Mushalla v. Teamsters Local No. 863 Pension Fund, 300 F.3d 391, 395 (3d Cir. 2002). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the summary judgment decision is de novo. Mushalla, 300 F.3d at 395. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
