Chirinian v. Travelers Companies, Inc., The

In Chirinian v. Travelers Companies, Inc., plaintiff Carlie Chirinian, a former Travelers employee, sued on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees, claiming that Travelers' employer-sponsored health plan unlawfully charged tobacco users higher premiums—called a tobacco surcharge—in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Under ERISA and related federal regulations, an employer may impose such a surcharge only if its wellness program meets all regulatory requirements, including giving participants at least one opportunity per year to avoid the surcharge, offering a 'full reward' to all similarly situated participants, and informing participants in plan materials that their personal physician's recommendations will be accommodated. Chirinian argued that Travelers' program failed on all three fronts; Travelers responded by moving to dismiss the entire case, arguing Chirinian lacked the legal right to sue, that her claims were filed too late, and that her claims failed on the merits.

The court first found that Chirinian, as a former employee, lacks standing to seek forward-looking (prospective) injunctive relief because she is no longer subject to the plan. However, she does have standing to seek money back for surcharges she already paid, because if the wellness program was legally defective, Travelers had no legal authority to charge her at all. On the timing question, the plan required lawsuits to be filed within one year of the act giving rise to the claim; the court held that each individual surcharge payment counted as a separate triggering act, so Chirinian can challenge surcharges she paid within the year before she filed suit (from October 17, 2023, through August 3, 2024), even though earlier charges are time-barred. On the merits, the court rejected Chirinian's argument that Travelers' enrollment deadlines for the tobacco cessation program violated the 'full reward' requirement, finding those deadlines consistent with the regulatory scheme and administrative guidance. The court also rejected a related disclosure claim that depended on that first argument.

Judge Provinzino allowed one claim to survive: Chirinian's allegation that Travelers' plan materials failed to inform participants that recommendations from their personal physician would be accommodated, as required by federal regulation. The court found the plan's Summary Plan Description contained no such language, and Travelers' attempt to argue the regulation itself is invalid—based on a recent Supreme Court decision limiting agency rulemaking power—was raised too late and with insufficient legal argument to be addressed now. The court dismissed Chirinian's breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim entirely, finding she failed to allege any loss to the plan as a whole (as required by law), since the surcharge money was deposited into the plan's trust and individual employees' losses do not automatically equal plan losses. All dismissals were without prejudice, meaning Chirinian may potentially refile those claims.