## Facts

- Glynn W. Rogers, a former Entergy Corporation employee, claimed he was entitled to long-term disability (LTD) benefits under Entergy’s ERISA-governed benefits plan.
- Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company (Hartford) insured the plan’s LTD coverage and denied Rogers’s LTD claim.
- Rogers sued Hartford and the Entergy Corporation Companies Benefits Plus Long Term Disability Plan (the Plan) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under ERISA.
- For Hartford, Rogers requested a waiver of service from Hartford’s Mississippi registered agent. The agent executed the waiver, informed a Hartford claims examiner, and attempted to forward the papers to Hartford’s office, but the complaint never reached the office responsible for responding, and Hartford made no further effort to obtain the complaint or answer.
- For the Plan, Rogers served process by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Plan administrator in New Orleans, Louisiana.
- Neither Hartford nor the Plan answered by the deadline. On Rogers’s request, the clerk entered default.
- The district court held a hearing and entered a default judgment against Hartford and the Plan awarding LTD-related amounts, medical benefits, prejudgment interest, and attorney’s fees. Hartford did not receive notice of the default-judgment hearing.
- More than a month later, Hartford and the Plan learned of the judgment and promptly moved to set it aside, arguing excusable neglect and, as to Hartford, lack of Rule 55(b)(2) notice.
- The district court refused to set aside the default judgment as to liability and LTD-related relief but modified the judgment to remove the medical-benefits award and the related prejudgment interest.
- Hartford and the Plan appealed the denial of relief from default; Rogers cross-appealed the deletion of medical benefits and related interest.

## Issues

1. Whether Hartford’s failure to respond resulted from “excusable neglect” warranting relief from the default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
2. Whether the Plan’s failure to respond resulted from “excusable neglect” warranting relief from the default judgment under Rule 60(b), and whether the Plan could contest service or venue after default.
3. Whether Hartford’s executed waiver of service constituted an “appearance” that entitled Hartford to notice of the default-judgment hearing under Rule 55(b)(2).
4. Whether the district court correctly removed medical-benefit damages (and related prejudgment interest) from the default judgment in this ERISA action.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s refusal to set aside the default judgment against Hartford and the Plan.
- The court held Hartford did not show excusable neglect: internal misrouting and lack of follow-up on suit papers did not justify relief from default.
- The court held the Plan likewise failed to show excusable neglect; its internal oversight did not justify setting aside the judgment.
- The court held Hartford’s waiver of service was not an “appearance” under Rule 55(b)(2), so Hartford was not entitled to notice of the default-judgment hearing on that ground.
- The court rejected the Plan’s post-default challenges to service and venue, concluding service was valid and any venue objection was waived by failing to appear and timely raise it.
- The court affirmed the modification deleting medical-benefits damages and the prejudgment interest tied to those damages, and it rejected Rogers’s cross-appeal seeking to reinstate them.

## Legal Principles

- Relief from a default judgment under Rule 60(b) is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- A party seeking to set aside a default judgment must show a valid ground for relief, including that the default resulted from excusable neglect; routine office mistakes, inadequate internal procedures, or failure to monitor litigation papers generally do not qualify.
- An “appearance” for Rule 55(b)(2) purposes requires some act that indicates an intent to defend the suit; executing a waiver of service, without more, is not an appearance requiring notice of a default-judgment hearing.
- A defendant that defaults and does not timely appear generally waives venue objections that should have been raised at the outset.
- Even after default, a court may not award relief that is not legally available on the claim presented; a default judgment may be modified to remove damages that the plaintiff cannot recover under ERISA and the plan structure at issue.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit left in place the default judgment (as modified) awarding Rogers LTD-related relief, prejudgment interest on that relief, and attorney’s fees, holding that Hartford and the Plan did not establish excusable neglect, Hartford’s waiver of service did not amount to an appearance triggering Rule 55(b)(2) notice, the Plan could not revive service or venue objections after default, and medical-benefit damages and related interest were properly removed because they were not recoverable in this ERISA action.


Rogers v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Co., 167 F.3d 933 (1999)