ERISA preemption may not apply to Indian tribes

The Tenth Circuit has determined that ERISA’s exception for governmental plans applies to plans sponsored by Indian tribes, so long as those plans meet the requirements of the definition. This means that ERISA preemption does not apply to insurance plans involving Indian tribes. Dobbs v. Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield was the second time the case came before the Tenth Circuit. The first time, the Tenth Circuit remanded the case, asking the district court to make factual findings, and stating that “i]f the Dobbses’ benefit plan meets the new definition of governmental plan under § 1002(32), ERISA will not preempt their state-law causes of action against Anthem.” On remand, the district court found that the plan would be preempted under the new statutory language regarding governmental plans, but that the amendment was not retroactive.

The Tenth Circuit explained “law of the case” principles and stated that it had already determined by implication that the amendment would retroactively apply to the Dobbses’ claims. It questioned whether it could affirm a district court decision that rejects a prior panel decision as clearly erroneous, citing In re Smith, 10 F.3d at 724 (noting that the Tenth Circuit is bound by the precedent of prior panels absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision by the Supreme Court). T he court discussed the general principles regarding when statutory amendments are applied prospectively or retrospectively.

The court reversed and remanded the case, once more asking the district court to make the factual determination it had previously asked it to make. 

Rather than looking to Mr. Dobbs’ duties, the court must determine whether all plan participants are employees ‘substantially all of whose services . . . are in the performance of essential governmental functions but not in the performance of commercial activities (whether or not an essential government function).’

Finally, the court held that the Dobbses could not claim fraud as to benefits. Those claims relate to the contracted for benefits, thus, if the plan was subject to ERISA, those claims would be preempted.

Oklahoma Casinos and Sovereign Immunity

Griffin, while attempting to enter an Indian casino, stepped into a flower bed and fell.  She sued the casino for negligence in state court.  The casino claimed it was immune from suit in state court, as a sovereign, and that Griffin would have to sue in tribal court.  The court disagreed.  It found that under the  State-Tribal Gaming Act and The Model Tribal Gaming Compact, the tribe has granted limited consent to be sued by patrons in courts of competent jurisidiction.  State district courts are courts of competent jurisdiction. 

The gaming compact mandates liability insurance coverage for the benefit of the public, prohibits the liability insurer from asserting tribal immunity, prescribes the procedure for casino patrons to claim damages, and expresses the tribe’s consent to suit.  Claims against tribes are limited to amounts set forth in the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act, and the presuit procedures found there must be followed for claims by patrons against tribes.  The Compact further requires tribes to carry insurance, and prohibits the insurer from asserting tribal immunity.

We believe that suits against tribes will increase as more and more casinos are built, especially since more and more casinos are making alcoholic beverages more readily available to their patrons. 

See, Griffith v. Choctaw Casino of Pocola;

Cossey v. Cherokee Nation Enterprises, (state district courts are courts of competent jurisdiction);

Dye v. Choctaw Casino of Pocola; (state district court may determine tort claims arising in Indian casinos against tribes or tribal enterprises)