ÿWPCÎ> 2ôy×}³ ¬êüâèw³ôd^ø2¬Õ8+á`ˆW7¼ÜL“¥¥“5Ž3ÎQn,÷ `Ù¬Ö+ þøÑš,ù¬ÔxD9$°D^V6 fU§˜—P¶Ìa•xWvDð2Á_žVEcñ£Å¸.ÕÙ=a§1-ÿp ÚÛOä]îF„tÃÿqÝcÕŽŸ(Çk áÐÙ[¸žs¸¬ô 'ZËë¬bß×ô4Ö\ñ›ˆÚ Â¾¤î1_H>Z™¹õÎN‹Háýù<ÌŠ¸Fru‡ÇMsð@€Ü‡ ÅL뜥ÕjPÉ@£I›¹„%½£y·Žêév`ÇŒ}¡9#£o G›¬èÏK9Âsš56d‹˜¶±¥ÛíhŽµÍ„ñmOŠ’Ùh‘´ƒ=ë?Š ªÃ“çÞ'¦¨=¼v+±lʇ`Ô5r œðä.É™)LÁqøé|§|&'á»orÙ{¢8ܦ>¬‚1µ¦×®ã`èˆÙò §óÁ¡à¡(nÀKÇ®1Nè ¸ˆerïyQúŠf7Æ—`ªÐ\ÍëPÆnMq}èûE¿`],n²œ˜ŽR\Z™ÄËâ‹o”èí¥!Vd'4ÖFޱ ¿vâ¦ð©PÖÿ¾osïçB!£'áܽÛdc %j^ p 0ˆ|UNwR4Vj zyÒóÅ mÇ #ÁÞ SŸ Æò Ƹ Æ~ÆD 0D NNPUNXE¦:¨ 0Uâ 0é7 0æ  0ã 0àé 0ÝÉ 0Ú¦ 0×€ 0ÔW 0C+ 0×n 0ÔE 0Ñ 0Îê 0˸ 0ȃ 0ÅK 0À 0@Ð 0Ô 0Ñä 0ε!bƒ" 0Ë‹" 0ÈV# 0Å$ 0Âã$ 0½¥% 00b& 0<’& 0¾Î& 0>Œ' 0vÊ' 0`@( 0` ( 0`) 0``) 0`À) 08 * 0ÒX* 02*+ 0ü\+ 0:X, 0Y’, 0_ë, 0 J- 0jT. 0„¾/ B*B1 D/l1 0„›1 D/3 0ÎN3 064 0R4 0:Z5 0^”5 0<ò5 0ë.6 0N7U6g7U>7 BÛ7U*ø7 0¤"8 D3Æ8 D-ù8 0K&9 AMq9 AS¾9Æ: 0¤×: 0D{; A«¿;dj<»­€,â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG*0,U€9W¥3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0 IÝ ƒRð-$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô -ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€ruling€by€the€Trial€Court€on€Defendantsðð€motion€to€transfer€has€not€been€included€in€the€record€on€appeal.€Ð ° ÐWe€assume€this€motion€was€denied€as€the€Trial€Court€tried€the€case.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó (ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular 0Ý ƒRð-$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô -ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€remedies€provided€in€this€subsection€are€in€addition€to€other€remedies€provided€plan€participants€andÐ ° Ðbeneficiaries€found€in€other€portions€of€ðð€1132.*+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..à*G+M ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*D+M ÿÿ(_24Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*A+M ÿÿ(_23Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>+M ÿÿ(_22Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;+M ÿÿ(_21Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8+M ÿÿ(_20Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5+M ÿÿ(_19Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*2+M ÿÿ(_18Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó* ÿÿ(_17Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô€*GM ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*DM ÿÿ(_15Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*AM ÿÿ(_14Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>M ÿÿ(_13Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;M ÿÿ(_12Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8M ÿÿ(_11Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5M ÿÿ(_10Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(2M ÿÿ&_9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó( ÿÿ&_8Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(GM ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(DM ÿÿ&_6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(AM ÿÿ&_5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù-(>M ÿÿ&_4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(;M ÿÿ&_3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(8M ÿÿ&_2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(5M ÿÿ&_1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó&2M ÿÿ$_Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(''ÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ  Ô(ÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ‡ôôôÔ(ÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡T<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Uô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡T<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Uô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡T<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Uô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/Ó<š®ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€I(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡W%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Uô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7Ó&ÿÿ  d dH)1dxd<š®ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€K(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡W%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Uô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓH)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡T<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡Uô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡T<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Uô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô(|G2ð-$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¥»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô -ò»»Ô(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ<þ6X9`(‹Courier Newô\  `‹&Times New Roman d%ä2¼A`‹Arial(|3¿s$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¥»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[ZA<< cÿÿ^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¿s$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¥»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK ZÝ ƒRð-$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô -ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€In€òòGreat€Westóó,€the€Supreme€Court€expressed€no€opinion€on€whether€Great€West€could€have€intervened€in€theÐ ° Ðunderlying€state€court€tort€lawsuit€or€whether€a€direct€action€by€Great€West€asserting€state€law€claims€would€have€beenÐ tÄ Ðpreempted€by€ERISA.€€òòGreat€Westóó,€122€S.€Ct.€at€718.€€Similarly,€these€issues€have€not€been€presented€on€appeal€in€thisÐ 8ˆ Ðcase,€and€we€likewise€express€no€opinion€on€these€matters.Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¥»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼¥»»»ÔÑ8€PùXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î„¥ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼¥»îî„ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓFebruary€11,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XPùX»¼¥ÔÌÌò òÔ#†¼¥»XXPùö#ÔÔ_ÔHAMRICKÔ_Ô'S,€INC.€v.€DEBORAH€ROY€AND€KEVIN€SHEPHERDó óÐ æ 6 ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òÔ€XPùX»¼¥ÔAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ  \ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€1„697„00€€€€€€Dale€C.€Workman,€JudgeÐ ø H ÐÌFILED€APRIL€29,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ Ð  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<»` AßÐ ¼  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E„2001„02669„COA„R3„CVÐ ·  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Ž` AßÐ ß  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÌDeborah€Roy€(ð ðRoyðð)€was€employed€at€Ô_ÔHamrickÔ_Ôððs,€Inc.€(ð ðÔ_ÔHamrickÔ_Ôððs)€and€was€provided€healthÐ vÆ Ðinsurance€through€a€self„funded€company€sponsored€health€insurance€plan€(ð ðPlanðð)€covered€byÐ b² ÐERISA.€€Roy€was€involved€in€an€automobile€accident.€€The€driver€of€the€other€automobile,€Mr.Ð Nž ÐNguyen,€was€responsible€for€the€accident.€€Roy€retained€Kevin€Shepherd€(ð ðShepherdðð)€to€representÐ :Š Ðher€in€the€lawsuit€against€Nguyen.€€Both€Roy€and€Shepherd€(collectively€referred€to€as€ð ðDefendantsðð)Ð &v Ðsigned€a€Reimbursement€Agreement€(ð ðAgreementðð)€wherein€they€agreed€to€reimburse€Ô_ÔHamrickÔ_ÔððsÐ b Ðout€of€any€proceeds€collected€in€the€underlying€tort€lawsuit€for€medical€expenses€related€to€theÐ þN Ðaccident.€€Unbeknownst€to€Ô_ÔHamrickÔ_Ôððs,€Roy€settled€her€lawsuit€against€Nguyen€for€$25,000.00.€€RoyÐ ê: Ðretained€two„thirds€of€the€proceeds€and€Shepherd€retained€one„third.€€Ô_ÔHamrickÔ_Ôððs€filed€this€lawsuitÐ Ö& Ðseeking€to€enforce€the€Agreement€and€recover€the€sums€it€paid€on€Royððs€behalf.€€The€Trial€CourtÐ Â Ðentered€judgment€against€both€Defendants€for€their€pro„rata€share€of€the€settlement€proceeds€dueÐ ®þ ÐÔ_ÔHamrickÔ_Ôððs€under€the€terms€of€the€Agreement.€€Defendants€appeal.€€We€affirm.Ð šê ÐÌÓ»ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€theÐ ^!®  ÐCircuit€Court€Affirmed;€Case€Remanded.ó óÐ J"š! ÐÓ  ÓÌòòÌD.€Michael€Swiney,€J.,€óódelivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.,óó€andÐ %^ $ ÐòòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ú%J!% ÐÌKevin€W.€Shepherd,€Maryville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellants€Deborah€Roy€and€Kevin€Shepherd.Ð Ò'"#' ÐÌLinda€J.€Hamilton€Mowles,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee€Ô_ÔHamrickÔ_Ôððs,€Inc.Ð ª)ú$) ÐÌÐ  ‚+Ò&+ý Ðà@66'ìàò òOPINIONˆÐ ° ÐÌà@ÛÛ%ìàòòBackgroundó óóóˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àThis€lawsuit€involves€Ô_ÔHamrickÔ_Ôððs€successful€attempt€in€the€Trial€Court€to€recover€sumsÐ `° Ðit€paid€on€Royððs€behalf€pursuant€to€a€company€sponsored€health€insurance€plan.€€Ô_ÔHamrickÔ_ÔððsÐ L œ Ð(ð ðPlaintiffðð)€employed€Roy€and€provided€her€with€health€insurance€through€the€Plan.€€Roy€wasÐ 8 ˆ Ðinvolved€in€an€automobile€accident€in€August€of€1997€with€Mr.€Nguyen.€€According€to€Plaintiff,Ð $ t Ðpursuant€to€the€terms€of€the€Plan,€it€retained€the€right€to€seek€subrogation€and/or€reimbursement€fromÐ  ` Ðany€sums€received€by€Roy€from€third€parties€responsible€for€the€automobile€accident.€€PlaintiffÐ ü L  Ðclaimed€since€the€Plan€was€controlled€by€ERISA,€the€common€law€ð ðmade€wholeðð€doctrine€did€notÐ è 8  Ðapply€and€Plaintiff€was€entitled€to€collect€the€full€amount€of€its€subrogation€interest.€€Both€Roy€andÐ Ô$  ÐShepherd€had€executed€the€Agreement€whereby€they€agreed€to€honor€Plaintiffððs€subrogation€interest,Ð À  Ðwhich€Plaintiff€claimed€totaled€$30,985.12.€€Plaintiff€asserted€Defendants€had€settled€the€underlyingÐ ¬ü  Ðthird„party€tort€action€and€failed€to€honor€its€subrogation€and/or€reimbursement€claim.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Agreement,€entered€into€on€October€2,€1997,€and€signed€by€Defendants,€providesÐ pÀ Ðas€follows:Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€accordance€with€the€provisions€of€the€Employee€Benefit€PlanÐ 4„ Ðprovided€in€the€Hamrickððs,€Inc.€Plan€Documents,€the€undersignedÐ  p Ðhereby€agrees€to€reimburse€and€pay€promptly€to€the€Hamrickððs,€Inc.Ð  \ ÐHealth€Benefit€Plan€an€amount€not€exceeding€the€aggregate€amountÐ øH Ðof€benefits€paid€under€said€Plan€for€charges€incurred€as€a€result€ofÐ ä4 Ðinjury€or€disease€sustained€on€or€about€8„12„97€in€the€State€ofÐ Ð  ÐTenn[.],€such€payment€to€come€from€any€recovery€by€the€undersignedÐ ¼  Ðof€(sic)€for€their€benefit€from€any€person,€corporation,€or€organizationÐ ¨ø Ðas€a€result€of€the€incident€therein€referenced.€Ð”ä` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€undersigned€further€agrees€to€execute€instruments€and€papers,Ð l¼ Ðfurnish€information€and€assistance,€and€take€other€necessary€andÐ X ¨ Ðrelated€action€as€The€Plan€Supervisor€may€require€to€facilitate€itsÐ D!” Ðrights€of€reimbursement€under€the€Reinsurance€Plan.€Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€undersigned€represents€and€warrants€that€no€release€or€dischargeÐ $X" Ðhas€been€given€with€respect€to€his€or€her€rights€of€recovery€describedÐ ô$D # Ðherein€and€that€the€undersigned€has€done€nothing€to€prejudice€saidÐ à%0!$ Ðrights.ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€filing€an€answer€denying€the€pertinent€allegations€of€the€complaint,€DefendantsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfiled€a€motion€to€transfer€the€lawsuit€to€federal€court,€apparently€claiming€the€federal€courts€hadÐ )à$( Ðexclusive€jurisdiction€over€the€claim.€€Plaintiff€responded€by€pointing€out€Defendantsðð€motion€wasÐ |*Ì%) Ðfiled€almost€four€months€after€they€were€served€with€process,€and,€therefore,€the€time€period€in€whichÐ h+¸&* Ðto€remove€the€case€to€federal€court€had€expired.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Defendants€then€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€for€lackÐ ° Ðof€subject€matter€jurisdiction.€€Defendants€claimed,€pursuant€to€29€U.S.C.€ðð€1132(e)(1),€participantsÐ œì Ðand€beneficiaries€to€a€plan€governed€by€ERISA€could€maintain€a€lawsuit€in€state€court,€but€a€fiduciaryÐ ˆØ Ðcould€not.€€Plaintiff€responded€by€arguing€its€subrogation€claim€was€not€a€cause€of€action€broughtÐ tÄ Ðpursuant€to€ERISA.€€The€Trial€Court€denied€Defendantsðð€motion€to€dismiss.Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€case€was€tried€in€August€of€2001.€€The€first€witness€was€Karen€Paris€(ð ðParisðð),Ð 8 ˆ Ðwho€for€eight€years€was€the€ð ðcompany€nurseðð€and€Plaintiffððs€administrator€of€employee€benefits.€Ð $ t ÐParis€first€learned€Roy€was€involved€in€an€automobile€accident€when€she€received€a€claim€formÐ  ` Ðindicating€there€had€been€an€automobile€accident.€€Paris€stated€when€she€receives€this€type€claim,€sheÐ ü L  Ðwill€ð ðautomatically€send€out€subrogation€[paperwork]€to€see€if€they€want€us€to€pay€the€claims.ðð€€InÐ è 8  Ðaddition€to€the€language€contained€in€the€Agreement€signed€by€Defendants,€Paris€identified€theÐ Ô$  Ðlanguage€contained€in€the€actual€Plan€regarding€subrogation.€€The€Plan€provides:Ð À  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àòòò òSubrogation€and€other€Rightsó óóó:€This€Plan€may€withholdÐ ˜è  Ðpayment€of€benefits€when€a€party€other€than€the€employee,€dependent,Ð ˆØ  Ðof€the€Plan,€may€be€liable€for€expenses€until€liability€is€legallyÐ tÄ Ðdetermined.€€However,€in€the€event€any€payment€is€made€under€thisÐ `° ÐPlan€for€which€any€party€other€than€the€employee,€dependent,€or€thisÐ Lœ ÐPlan€may€be€liable,€this€Plan€shall€be€subrogated€to€all€the€rights€ofÐ 8ˆ Ðrecovery€to€the€extent€of€such€payments€by€this€Plan.€€Any€employee,Ð $t Ðdependent,€or€other€person€or€organization€receiving€payment€fromÐ ` Ðthis€Plan€shall€execute€and€deliver€instruments€and€papers€and€doÐ üL Ðwhatever€else€necessary€to€secure€such€rights€to€the€Plan,€and€shall€doÐ è8 Ðnothing€either€before€or€after€payment€by€the€Plan€to€prejudice€suchÐ Ô$ Ðrights.ÐÀ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àParis€explained€no€payments€would€have€been€made€for€injuries€resulting€from€theÐ ˜è Ðautomobile€accident€if€Roy€had€not€signed€the€Agreement.€€Once€the€signed€Agreement€wasÐ „Ô Ðreceived,€Plaintiff€made€payments€for€the€medical€expenses€related€to€the€automobile€accident.€€ParisÐ pÀ Ðconsidered€anything€related€to€Royððs€neck€injury€as€caused€by€the€automobile€accident.€€Paris€reliedÐ \ ¬ Ðon€the€ICD„9€diagnosis€codes€when€determining€what€bills€were€for€treatment€for€the€neck€injury.€Ð H!˜ ÐIn€the€lawsuit€filed€by€Plaintiff,€Paris€claimed€Plaintiff€was€seeking€only€reimbursement€for€claimsÐ 4"„  Ðpaid€on€the€neck€injury.€€The€ICD„9€Codes€are€used€industry€wide€and€are€also€used€by€Medicare€andÐ  #p! ÐMedicaid.Ð  $\" ÐÌà  àà ` àParis€had€no€communications€with€Roy€from€the€time€she€received€the€signedÐ ä%4!$ ÐAgreement€in€1997€until€a€letter€was€sent€to€Shepherd€in€May€of€2000€requesting€an€update€on€theÐ Ð& "% Ðstatus€of€the€lawsuit€against€Mr.€Nguyen.€€In€this€letter,€Paris€claimed€$31,001.92€had€been€paid€for€Ð ¼' #& Ðmedical€bills€related€to€the€accident.€€Shepherd€replied€to€the€letter,€stating€Nguyen€had€minimumÐ ¨(ø#' Ðinsurance€limits€of€$25,000.00,€which€Shepherd€claimed€ð ðdid€not€even€come€close€to€compensatingÐ ° ÐMs.€Roy€for€the€permanent€injury€which€she€received€in€the€accident.ðð€€According€to€Shepherd,€thereÐ œì Ðwere€ð ðnot€available€funds€for€the€money€which€Hamrickððs€has€sought€against€Ms.€Roy€in€this€matter.€Ð ˆØ ÐAs€a€result,€this€case€did€not€proceed€to€trial€but€instead,€we€voluntarily€dismissed€her€claim.ðð€€OnÐ tÄ Ðcross„examination,€Paris€indicated€Plaintiff€was€seeking€subrogation€or€reimbursement€for€injuriesÐ `° Ðrelated€to€the€neck,€including€any€worsening€of€a€pre„existing€neck€injury€caused€by€the€automobileÐ L œ Ðaccident.€€Paris€admitted€she€relied€primarily€on€the€ICD„9€codes€when€trying€to€determine€whatÐ 8 ˆ Ðmedical€bills€involved€treatment€to€the€neck€which€she€believed€were€related€to€the€automobileÐ $ t Ðaccident.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àRoy€testified€she€began€working€for€Hamrickððs€in€1994€and€worked€there€four€years.€Ð è 8  ÐAfter€the€automobile€accident,€Roy€suffered€a€work„related€injury.€€When€questioned€about€theÐ Ô$  Ðsubsequent€work„related€injury,€Roy€testified€as€follows:Ð À  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.à ¸ àOkay.€€You€were€also€asked€about€the€workersðð€compensationÐ ˜è  Ðaction.€€The€fact€of€the€matter€is€that€when€you€hurt€your€back€ð!ð€whenÐ „Ô  Ðyou€hurt€yourself€on€the€job,€that€was€to€your€low€back;€is€that€right?ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.à ¸ àYes.ÐH˜` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.à ¸ àIt€didnððt€involve€your€neck;€did€it?Ð p` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.à ¸ àWell,€I€canððt€really€say€it€didnððt€bother€my€neck€because€of€myÐ øH Ðspine,€my€whole€spine.Ðä4` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.à ¸ àWell,€do€you€remember€in€the€workersðð€compensation€actionÐ ¼  Ðme€taking€your€deposition€and€asking€you€what€injuries€you€had€inÐ ¨ø Ðthat€incident,€and€you€responded€that€you€had€injured€your€back;€andÐ ”ä ÐI€said€what€portion€of€your€back,€and€you€said€low€back?ЀÐ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.à ¸ àYes.€€ÐX ¨` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àRoy€testified€the€automobile€accident€aggravated€her€neck€pain.€€Roy€admitted€beingÐ 0"€  Ðtreated€for€neck€problems€in€the€past,€but€she€had€completed€a€regimen€of€physical€therapy€and€wasÐ #l! Ðpain€free€at€the€time€of€the€automobile€accident.€€The€accident€caused€her€neck€pain€to€worsen€andÐ $X" Ðshe€developed€left€arm€pain€and€numbness.€€She€did€not€have€numbness€in€her€arm€prior€to€theÐ ô$D # Ðautomobile€accident.€€Roy€continued€to€have€problems€with€her€neck€and€left€arm€and€eventuallyÐ à%0!$ Ðunderwent€surgery.€€She€continued€to€have€problems€with€her€neck,€but€the€surgery€alleviated€theÐ Ì&"% Ðpain€and€numbness€in€her€left€arm.€€Roy€admitted€the€pain€and€numbness€in€her€left€arm€were€relatedÐ ¸'#& Ðto€the€automobile€accident.€€The€lawsuit€pertaining€to€the€automobile€accident€was€settled€forÐ ¤(ô#' Ð$25,000.00.€€Roy€did€not€inform€Hamrickððs€of€the€settlement.€€Roy€was€asked€what€medical€bills€sheÐ )à$( Ðclaimed,€while€that€litigation€was€still€pending,€were€incurred€as€a€result€of€the€automobile€accident,Ð |*Ì%) Ðand€she€stated:€€Ð h+¸&* Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.à ¸ àIn€that€accident€you€were€asserting€that€you€had€medicalÐ ° Ðexpenses€that€were€even€more€than€the€$25,000€in€coverage€that€heÐ œì Ðhad€related€to€that€accident;€werenððt€you?ЈØ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.à ¸ àI€guess€so.Ð`°` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.à ¸ àWell,€do€you€remember€me€taking€your€deposition€here€justÐ 8 ˆ Ða€few€weeks€ago€and€asking€you€if€you€had€asserted€[in]€that€claimÐ $ t Ðthat€the€amount€of€your€medical€bills€that€you€had€which€you€wereÐ  ` Ðattributing€to€the€accident€and€asking€Mr.€Nguyen€to€compensate€youÐ ü L  Ðfor€exceeded€the€amount€of€$25,000,€and€you€answered€right?Ðè 8 ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.à ¸ àI€guess.€€I€donððt€believe€all€the€medical€bills€were€attributed€toÐ À  Ðthe€accident€only.€€I€was€hurt€before€the€accident.Ьü ` x` x ÐÌà@ÙÙ'ìà*€*€*€*ˆÐ „Ô  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.à ¸ àBut€I€guess€the€question€is€in€that€accident€in€order€to€ð!ð€in€thatÐ \¬ Ðlawsuit€in€order€to€obtain€the€settlement€you€were€asserting€that€theyÐ H˜ Ðwere€related€at€that€time?Ð4„` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.à ¸ àI€guess€I€was.Ð \` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.à ¸ àAnd€itððs€your€position€now€that€the€only€thing€thatððs€related€isÐ ä4 Ðthe€emergency€room€visit€and€one€follow„up€visit€with€Dr.€Burkhart?ÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.à ¸ àYes,€thatððs€right.Шø` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àRoy€then€admitted€Mr.€Nguyenððs€insurance€company€did€not€pay€her€$25,000.00Ð €Ð Ðsimply€for€an€emergency€room€visit.€€The€Trial€Court€then€asked€Roy€the€following:Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTHE€COURT:€Are€you€telling€me€you€didnððt€assert€anything€[wasÐ D!” Ðrelated]€in€the€previous€case?€.€.€.€Are€you€telling€me€you€did€notÐ 0"€  Ðassert€anything€in€that€previous€case€about€these€bills?€€What€are€youÐ #l! Ðtelling€me€you€asserted€in€the€previous€case€about€these€bills?Ð$X"` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTHE€WITNESS:€Well,€if€youððre€asking€for€an€amount,€I€didnððt.Ðà%0!$` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTHE€COURT:€Did€your€lawyer€for€you?€€What€did€you€tell€them€wasÐ ¸'#& Ðcaused€by€the€motor€vehicle€accident?Ф(ô#'` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTHE€WITNESS:€That€it€had€aggravated€my€neck€condition.Ð|*Ì%)` x` x ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTHE€COURT:€Did€you€say€the€surgery€was€related€or€not?а` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTHE€WITNESS:€I€believed€that€it€was€at€the€time,€that€part€of€it€was,Ð ˆØ Ðyes.ÐtÄ` x` x ÐÌRoy€testified€Hamrickððs€did€not€attempt€to€ð ðstand€in€[her]€placeðð€in€the€automobile€accident,€did€notÐ L œ Ðassist€with€that€lawsuit,€and€did€not€share€in€the€costs.€€She€further€admitted,€however,€that€she€neverÐ 8 ˆ Ðasked€Hamrickððs€to€assist€in€any€way.€€In€the€automobile€accident€lawsuit,€Royððs€husband€also€filedÐ $ t Ðsuit€as€a€plaintiff.€€Roy€stated€she€ð ðsplitðð€the€proceeds€equally€with€her€husband.€€à8 @ àÐ  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àShepherd€testified€because€he€was€not€a€physician,€he€really€could€not€say€what€wasÐ è 8  Ðor€was€not€related€to€the€accident.€€Shepherd€did,€however,€identify€a€letter€he€sent€to€Mr.€NguyenððsÐ Ô$  Ðinsurance€company€which€states,€in€relevant€part,€as€follows:Ð À  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àI€understand€from€your€previous€correspondence€to€us€that€Mr.Ð ˜è  ÐNguyen€has€insurance€through€you€and€carries€coverage€up€toÐ „Ô  Ð$25,000.00€per€person€per€accident.€€Please€accept€this€letter€as€ourÐ pÀ Ðdemand€for€policy€limits€on€this€matter.€€In€the€accident€referencedÐ \¬ Ðabove,€Ms.€Royððs€forehead€slammed€into€the€steering€wheel.€€Her€leftÐ H˜ Ðarm€immediately€began€hurting€as€did€her€lower€back€within€minutesÐ 4„ Ðof€the€accident.€€Ms.€Roy€had€previously€suffered€a€ruptured€disc€inÐ  p Ðher€neck€and€low€back€prior€to€the€accident.ð8ð€She€had€been€releasedÐ  \ Ðfrom€this€previous€injury€only€three€weeks€before€this€accident€ð8ð€andÐ øH Ðwas€pain€free€at€that€time.€€However,€due€to€this€re„injury,€the€painÐ ä4 Ðhas€come€back€and€she€continues€to€receive€treatment€and€therapy.ÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌThis€letter€was€sent€before€the€surgery€on€Royððs€neck.€€When€asked€what€he€believed€was€related€toÐ ¨ø Ðthe€automobile€accident,€Shepherd€stated€the€treatment€Roy€received€the€day€of€the€accident€and€theÐ ”ä Ðfollow„up€appointment€ð ðclearly€related€to€the€accident.ðð€€Shepherd€later€admitted€specificallyÐ €Ð Ðclaiming€in€a€letter€to€Mr.€Nguyenððs€insurance€carrier€an€MRI€which€cost€$1,156.00€was€related€toÐ l¼ Ðthe€accident.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€issued€detailed€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€which€wereÐ 0"€  Ðincorporated€into€its€final€judgment.€€As€relevant€to€this€appeal,€the€Trial€Court€concluded:Ð #l! ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThereððs€no€question€under€Exhibit€1€under€this€pension€planÐ ô$D # Ðthere€is€a€subrogation€agreement.€€Thereððs€no€question€under€ExhibitÐ à%0!$ Ð2€that€a€notice€was€given€to€Mr.€Shepherd€and€the€Roys€about€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðsubrogation€claim.€€Thereððs€no€question€given€that€the€parties€signedÐ ¸'#& Ðan€agreement€whereby€all€parties€agreed€to€the€extent€that€there€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ða€subrogation€interest€that€any€proceeds€that€would€be€received€by€theÐ )à$( ÐRoys€as€a€result€of€that€subrogation€interest€would€be€refunded€andÐ |*Ì%) Ðpaid€back€to€Hamrickððs,€Inc.ððs€health€benefit€plan€under€Exhibit€2.Ðh+¸&*` x` x Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThen€the€accident€proceeds,€there€were€expenses€of€excess€ofÐ ° Ð$30,000€as€shown€in€Exhibit€6,€and€May€the€18òòthóó€of€1999€the€partiesÐ œì Ðreceived€from€the€third€party€tort„feasorððs€insurance€carrier€policyÐ ˆØ Ðlimits€of€$25,000€settling€the€claim.€€The€proceeds€were€divided€andÐ tÄ Ðno€contact€was€made€nor€was€any€effort€made€to€resolve€theÐ `° Ðsubrogation€to€the€extent€it€was€subrogated€against€those€fundsÐ L œ Ðagainst€this€amount.Ð8 ˆ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€question€here€today€is€well,€yes,€they€had€a€subrogation,Ð  ` Ðbut€does€the€record€establish€what€amount€theyððre€entitled€to€receive.€Ð ü L  ÐThe€Court,€I€think,€needs€to€go€no€further€than€the€testimony€of€Ms.Ð è 8  ÐRoy€herself€saying€thereððs€no€question€that€the€surgery€dealt€with€leftÐ Ô$  Ðarm€pain€that€occurred€after€the€wreck€that€wasnððt€there€before€theÐ À  Ðwreck€and€that€the€surgery€cured€that.Ьü ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àIf€you€look€at€Exhibit€6,€the€expenses€related€to€that€surgeryÐ „Ô  Ðon€September€the€8òòthóó€are€$9,863.92€for€Fort€Sanders€Regional€MedicalÐ pÀ ÐCenter,€$1,031.95€to€Fort€Sanders€Anesthesia€Group€on€that€sameÐ \¬ Ðdate,€and€Dr.€Burkhartððs€fee€of€$11,524.47.€€That€totals€$22,420.34.€Ð H˜ ÐWe€can€debate€all€day€about€all€of€this€other€stuff,€but€itððs€absolutelyÐ 4„ Ðclear€from€the€defendantððs€own€testimony€that€that€surgery€wasÐ  p Ðclearly€related€to€injuries€she€received€in€the€wreck€to€cure€theÐ  \ Ðradiation€of€pain€down€her€arm.€€To€that€extent€Hamrickððs€would€beÐ øH Ðsubrogated€to€the€extent€of€those€expenses,€which€is€as€stated€someÐ ä4 Ð$22,420.34.ð8ð€Of€that€amount€the€Court€assumes€Mr.€Shepherd€got,Ð Ð  Ðas€is€stated€in€the€letter€in€this€case,€a€fee€of€one€third€of€which€heÐ ¼  Ðwould€have€gotten€$7,473.44€and€that€the€Roys€would€have€receivedÐ ¨ø Ðthe€net€proceeds€of€that€of€$14,946.90.Дä` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€Court€is€not€unmindful€of€the€right€of€an€attorney€toÐ l¼ Ðrecover€for€their€good€work€in€protecting€the€interests€of€aÐ X ¨ Ðsubrogation€carrier,€but€obviously€in€this€case€Mr.€Shepherd€cannotÐ D!” Ðsay€he€protected€their€interests€in€that€he€did€nothing€to€protect€it€andÐ 0"€  Ðactually€received€the€money€they€should€have€been€receiving.€€So€theÐ #l! ÐCourt€makes€no€allowance€against€that€$22,000€for€any€fees€whichÐ $X" ÐHamrickððs€would€owe€Mr.€Shepherd€for€protecting€their€subrogationÐ ô$D # Ðbecause€he€did€to€the€contrary.€€He€did€not€protect€their€subrogationÐ à%0!$ Ðinterests€in€any€way.ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€then€entered€judgment€against€Roy€in€the€amount€of€$14,946.90,€plusÐ ¤(ô#' Ðprejudgment€interest,€and€against€Shepherd€for€$7,473.44,€plus€prejudgment€interest.€€DefendantsÐ )à$( Ðappeal€the€Trial€Courtððs€judgment,€raising€the€following€issues€which€we€quote€from€their€brief:Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  à1.à0` Ð Ð àThe€Trial€Court€Erred€by€Failing€to€Dismiss€the€Complaint€for€Lack€ofÐ ° ÐSubject€Matter€Jurisdiction.Мì` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  à2.à0` Ð Ð àThe€Trial€Court€Erred€by€Failing€to€Apply€the€ð ðMade€Wholeðð€Doctrine.ÐtÄ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  à3.à0` Ð Ð àDid€the€Hamrickððs€Plan€Administrator,€as€Fiduciary,€Act€Arbitrarily€andÐ L œ ÐCapriciously€in€Their€Decision€to€Seek€Subrogation€and/or€Reimbursement?Ð8 ˆ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  à4.à0` Ð Ð àThe€Evidence€was€Simply€Insufficient€to€Support€Hamrickððs€Claim€forÐ  ` ÐReimbursement.Ðü L ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà@))%ìàò òòòDiscussionó óóóˆÐ Ô$  ÐÌÔ‡XPùXXXPùÔà  àà ` àA€review€of€findings€of€fact€by€a€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trialÐ ¬ü  Ðcourt,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÐ ˜è  Ðotherwise.€Tenn.€Rule€App.€P.€13(d);òò€Brooks€v.€Brooks,€óó992€S.W.2d€403,€404€(Tenn.€1999).€€ReviewÐ „Ô  Ðof€questions€of€law€is€òòde€novo,óó€without€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòSee€Nelson€v.€Wal„Mart€Stores,Ð pÀ ÐInc.,€óó8€S.W.3d€625,€628€(Tenn.€1999).Ô#†XPùXXXPùHd#Ô€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€first€address€Defendantsðð€argument€that€the€Trial€Court€lacked€subject€matterÐ 4„ Ðjurisdiction€over€Plaintiffððs€claim.€€According€to€Defendants,€federal€courts€have€exclusive€subjectÐ  p Ðmatter€jurisdiction€over€claims€by€plan€fiduciaries€seeking€reimbursement€for€sums€paid€to€a€planÐ  \ Ðparticipant.€€Defendants€base€this€argument€on€29€U.S.C.€ðð€1132(a)(3)€and€ðð1132(e)(1),€whichÐ øH Ðprovide€in€relevant€part€as€follows:Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àò òðð€1132.€€Civil€enforcement.ó óÐ ¼  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò ò(a)€Persons€empowered€to€bring€a€civil€actionó óДä` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àA€civil€action€may€be€brought€ð!ðÐl¼` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(1)€by€a€participant€or€beneficiary€ð!ðÐD!”` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` x` xà€€(A)€for€the€relief€provided€for€in€subsection€(c)€of€thisÐ #l! Ðsection,€orÐ$X"¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` x` xà€€(B)€to€recover€benefits€due€to€him€under€the€terms€of€hisÐ à%0!$ Ðplan,€to€enforce€his€rights€under€the€terms€of€the€plan,€or€toÐ Ì&"% Ðclarify€his€rights€to€future€benefits€under€the€terms€of€the€plan;и'#&¸ x¸ x ÐÌà@ÙÙ'ìà*€*€*€*ˆÐ )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(3)€by€a€participant,€beneficiary,€or€fiduciary€(A)€to€enjoin€anyÐ ° Ðâ âact€or€practice€which€violates€any€provision€of€this€subchapter€or€theÐ œì Ðterms€of€the€plan,€or€(B)€to€obtain€other€appropriate€equitable€reliefÐ ˆØ Ð(i)€to€redress€such€violations€or€(ii)€to€enforce€any€provisions€of€thisÐ tÄ ÐÔ_ÔsubchapterÔ_Ô€or€the€terms€of€the€plan[.]׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð`°` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àò ò(e)€Jurisdictionó óÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(1)€Except€for€actions€under€subsection€(a)(1)(B)€of€thisÐ  ` Ðsection,€the€district€courts€of€the€United€States€shall€have€exclusiveÐ ü L  Ðjurisdiction€of€civil€actions€under€this€Ô_ÔsubchapterÔ_Ô€brought€by€theÐ è 8  ÐSecretary€or€by€a€participant,€beneficiary,€fiduciary,€or€any€personÐ Ô$  Ðreferred€to€in€section€101(f)(1)€of€this€title.€€State€courts€of€competentÐ À  Ðjurisdiction€and€district€courts€of€the€United€States€shall€haveÐ ¬ü  Ðconcurrent€jurisdiction€of€actions€under€paragraphs€(1)(B)€and€(7)€ofÐ ˜è  Ðsubsection€(a)€of€this€section.ð8ðÐ„Ô ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àAccording€to€Defendants,€Plaintiffððs€claim€is€made€pursuant€to€29€U.S.C.€ððÐ \¬ Ð1132(a)(3),€and,€therefore,€must€be€filed€in€federal€district€court€pursuant€to€29€U.S.C.€ðð€1132(e).€Ð H˜ ÐPlaintiff€argues€its€subrogation€claim€is€not€a€cause€of€action€classified€as€an€ERISA€claim€forÐ 4„ Ðpurposes€of€determining€subject€matter€jurisdiction.€€In€resolving€this€issue,€it€is€important€to€noteÐ  p Ðin€this€appeal€Defendants€challenge€only€the€Trial€Courtððs€subject€matter€jurisdiction€to€hear€theÐ  \ Ðclaim.€€Defendants€do€not€assert€other€defenses€which€may€or€may€not€be€available,€such€as€federalÐ øH Ðpreemption.€€We€will,€therefore,€limit€our€resolution€of€this€first€issue€to€the€very€specific€questionÐ ä4 Ðpresented€for€review,€i.e.,€whether€the€Trial€Court€had€subject€matter€jurisdiction€over€PlaintiffððsÐ Ð  Ðclaim.€€We€conclude€it€did.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€January€8,€2002,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€issued€a€5„4€decision€in€òòGreat„Ð ”ä ÐWest€Life€&€Annuity€Ins.€Co.€v.€Knudsonóó,€534€U.S.€204,€122€S.€Ct.€708,€151€L.€Ed.€2d€635€(2002).€Ð €Ð ÐGreat€West€Life€and€Annuity€Insurance€Company€(ð ðGreat€Westðð)€sued€Janette€and€Eric€Knudson€toÐ l¼ Ðenforce€a€reimbursement€provision€of€a€plan€subject€to€ERISA.€€This€specific€issue€presented€forÐ X ¨ Ðreview€was€ð ðwhether€ðð€502(a)(3)€of€the€Employee€Retirement€Income€Security€Act€of€1974€(ERISA),Ð D!” Ð88€Stat.€891,€29€U.S.C.€ðð€1132(a)(3)(1994€ed.),€authorizes€this€action€by€petitioners€to€enforce€aÐ 0"€  Ðreimbursement€provision€of€an€ERISA€plan.ðð€€122€S.€Ct.€at€711.€€The€Supreme€Court€concluded€itÐ #l! Ðdid€not.€€Janette€Knudson€was€rendered€a€quadriplegic€after€an€automobile€accident.€€Great€WestÐ $X" Ðfiled€a€lawsuit€in€federal€district€court€seeking€injunctive€and€declaratory€relief€to€enforce€theÐ ô$D # Ðreimbursement€agreement€and€obtain€from€the€settlement€proceeds€$411,157.11,€all€of€which,€exceptÐ à%0!$ Ðfor€$75,000.00,€it€had€paid€towards€Knudsonððs€medical€bills€resulting€from€the€accident.€€In€resolvingÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€issue€presented€for€review,€the€Supreme€Court€focused€heavily€on€the€language€in€ðð€1132(a)(3)Ð ¸'#& Ðwhich€authorizes€a€plan€fiduciary€to€bring€an€action€ð ðto€enjoin€any€act€or€practice€which€violates€ð8ðÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€terms€of€the€plan,€or€(B)€to€obtain€òòother€appropriate€equitable€reliefóó€ð8ð.ðð€(emphasis€added).€€TheÐ ° ÐSupreme€Court€then€analyzed€whether€Great€Westððs€cause€of€action€was€properly€classified€asÐ œì Ðð ðequitableðð€relief.€€According€to€the€Supreme€Court,€what€Great€West€sought€was,€in€essence:Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àto€impose€personal€liability€on€respondents€for€a€contractualÐ `° Ðobligation€to€pay€money€„„€relief€that€was€not€typically€available€inÐ L œ Ðequity.€€"A€claim€for€money€due€and€owing€under€a€contract€isÐ 8 ˆ Ð'quintessentially€an€action€at€law.'"€òòWal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.€v.€Wellsóó,Ð $ t Ð213€F.3d€398,€401€(CA7€2000)€(Posner,€J.).€€"Almost€invariably€ð8ðÐ  ` Ðsuits€seeking€(whether€by€judgment,€injunction,€or€declaration)€toÐ ü L  Ðcompel€the€defendant€to€pay€a€sum€of€money€to€the€plaintiff€are€suitsÐ è 8  Ðfor€'money€damages,'€as€that€phrase€has€traditionally€been€applied,Ð Ô$  Ðsince€they€seek€no€more€than€compensation€for€loss€resulting€from€theÐ À  Ðdefendant's€breach€of€legal€duty."€€òòBowen€v.€Massachusettsóó,€487€U.S.Ð ¬ü  Ð879,€918„919,€108€S.€Ct.€2722,€101€L.€Ed.€2d€749€(1988)€(SCALIA,Ð ˜è  ÐJ.,€dissenting).€€And€"money€damages€are,€of€course,€the€classic€formÐ „Ô  Ðof€òòlegalóó€relief."€òòMertens,€supraóó,€[508€U.S.]€at€255,€113€S.€Ct.€2063.ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌòòGreat€Westóó,€122€S.€Ct.€at€712„13.€€After€reviewing€applicable€precedent€regarding€what€wasÐ H˜ Ðhistorically€considered€equitable€relief€versus€legal€relief,€the€Supreme€Court€concluded€the€reliefÐ 4„ Ðsought€by€Great€West€was€properly€deemed€legal€relief,€and€because€ð ðpetitioners€are€seeking€legalÐ  p Ðrelief€ð!ð€the€imposition€of€personal€liability€on€respondents€for€a€contractual€obligation€to€pay€moneyÐ  \ Ðð!ð€ðð€502(a)(3)[,€29€U.S.C.€ðð€1132(a)(3)]€does€not€authorize€this€action.ðð€€122€S.€Ct.€at€719.Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€relief€sought€by€Plaintiff€in€this€case€is€quite€similar€to€the€relief€sought€in€òòGreatÐ Ð  ÐWestóó.€€Specifically,€Plaintiff€is€seeking€to€impose€personal€liability€on€Defendants€for€a€contractualÐ ¼  Ðobligation€to€pay€money.€€Pursuant€to€òòGreat€Westóó,€this€is€not€an€action€authorized€by€29€U.S.C.€ððÐ ¨ø Ð1132(a)(3)€because€it€does€not€involve€equitable€relief.€€It€necessarily€follows€that€the€jurisdictionalÐ ”ä Ðlimitation€found€in€ðð€1132(e)€limiting€jurisdiction€to€the€federal€courts€does€not€come€into€play.€Ð €Ð ÐBecause€the€jurisdictional€limitation€in€ðð€1132(e)€is€not€applicable,€we€conclude€the€Trial€Court€hadÐ l¼ Ðsubject€matter€jurisdiction€over€Plaintiffððs€claim.׃b×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€will€address€Defendantsðð€second€and€fourth€issues€together.€€The€second€issue€isÐ 0"€  Ðwhether€the€Trial€Court€erred€by€not€applying€the€ð ðmade€wholeðð€doctrine€in€this€case.€€DefendantsÐ #l! Ðargue€Roy€was€not€made€whole€by€the€$25,000.00€settlement€and€Plaintiff,€therefore,€is€not€entitledÐ $X" Ðto€any€of€the€proceeds€from€the€settlement.€€Plaintiff€argues€Roy€was€made€whole€by€the€$25,000.00Ð ô$D # Ðsettlement.€€In€their€fourth€issue,€Defendants€argue€there€was€insufficient€proof€the€neck€injury€wasÐ à%0!$ Ðactually€related€to€the€automobile€accident,€as€opposed€to€being€a€preexisting€condition.€€Ð Ì&"% Їà  àà ` àA€right€of€subrogation€may€arise€by€contract,€application€of€equitable€principles€ofÐ ° Ðlaw,€or€by€statute.€€òòBlankenship€v.€Estate€of€Bainóó,€5€S.W.3d€647,€650€(Tenn.€1999).€€The€right€ofÐ œì Ðsubrogation€is€based€on€two€fundamental€premises:€ð ð1)€that€an€insured€should€not€be€permittedÐ ˆØ Ðrecovery€twice€for€the€same€loss,€which€would€be€the€potential€result€if€the€insured€recovers€fromÐ tÄ Ðboth€its€insurer€and€a€tortfeasor;€and€2)€that€the€tortfeasor€should€compensate€the€insurer€forÐ `° Ðpayments€the€insurer€made€to€the€insured.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Being€guided€by€general€principles€of€equity,€ourÐ L œ ÐSupreme€Court€in€òòBlankenshipóó€further€observed€ð ðthat€there€is€no€equitable€basis€for€allowingÐ 8 ˆ Ðsubrogation€where€an€insured€has€not€been€made€whole€because€there€simply€is€no€risk€that€theÐ $ t Ðinsured€may€recover€twice€for€the€same€loss.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€651(citations€omitted).€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àRoy€has€the€burden€of€proving€she€was€not€made€whole€by€the€$25,000.00€settlement.€Ð è 8  ÐòòSee€Nelson€v.€Innovative€Recovery€Services,€Inc.óó,€No.€M2000„03109„COA„R3„CV,€2001€Tenn.€App.Ð Ô$  ÐLEXIS€859€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Nov.€21,€2001)(no€Rule€11€app.€for€perm.€to€appeal€filed).€€In€òòTennesseeÐ À  ÐFarmers€Mutual€Insurance€Co.€v.€Farmeróó,€No.€03A01-9610-CH-00327,€1998€Tenn.€App.€LEXISÐ ¬ü  Ð581€at€*€9€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Aug.€20,€1998)(no€Rule€11€app.€for€perm.€to€appeal€filed),€the€followingÐ ˜è  Ðis€found:Ð „Ô  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€Chancellor€held€that€the€insurer€had€the€burden€of€proofÐ \¬ Ðto€establish€that€its€insured€had€been€made€whole,€in€order€to€recoverÐ H˜ Ðits€subrogation€claim,€and€that€it€had€not€sustained€that€burden.€€WeÐ 4„ Ðrespectfully€disagree.€€In€none€of€the€cases€discussing€the€"fullÐ  p Ðrecovery"€doctrine€it€is€suggested€that€the€insurer€has€the€burden€ofÐ  \ Ðproof.€€The€policy€provisions,€together€with€the€contractualÐ øH Ðagreements€executed€upon€advancement€of€medical€expenses,Ð ä4 Ðestablish€a€òòprima€facieóó€case.€€To€defeat€the€right€of€subrogation,€theÐ Ð  Ðinsured€must€then€affirmatively€show€[if€the€doctrine€is€applicable]Ð ¼  Ðthat€she€was€not€made€whole.€€Ð¨ø` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€present€case,€the€Trial€Court€concluded€the€medical€bills€from€Royððs€surgeryÐ €Ð Ðwere€related€to€the€automobile€accident.€€The€Trial€Court€further€found,€based€on€Royððs€testimony,Ð l¼ Ðð ðthereððs€no€question€that€the€surgery€dealt€with€left€arm€pain€that€occurred€after€the€wreck€that€wasnððtÐ X ¨ Ðthere€before€the€wreck€and€that€the€surgery€cured€that.ðð€€The€evidence€in€the€record€does€notÐ D!” Ðpreponderate€against€these€factual€findings€of€the€Trial€Court.€€Royððs€claim€at€trial€that€virtually€noneÐ 0"€  Ðof€the€medical€bills€were€related€to€the€automobile€accident€was€directly€contrary€to€previousÐ #l! Ðassertions€made€by€her€and€Shepherd€in€hopes€of€maximizing€recovery€in€the€car€wreck€lawsuit.€Ð $X" ÐRoyððs€credibility€certainly€was€a€factor€the€Trial€Court€was€entitled€to€take€into€consideration.€€TheÐ ô$D # Ðtrial€courtððs€determinations€regarding€credibility€are€accorded€considerable€deference€by€this€Court.€Ð à%0!$ ÐòòDavis€v.€Liberty€Mutual€Ins.€Co.óó,€38€S.W.3d€560,€563€(Tenn.€2001).€€ð ð[A]ppellate€courts€will€not€re„Ð Ì&"% Ðevaluate€a€trial€judgeððs€assessment€of€witness€credibility€absent€clear€and€convincing€evidence€to€theÐ ¸'#& Ðcontrary.ðð€€òòWells€v.€Tennessee€Bd.€of€Regentsóó,€9€S.W.3d€779,€783€(Tenn.€1999).€€Roy€failed€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðestablish€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€she€was€not€ð ðmade€wholeðð€by€the€$25,000.00Ð )à$( Ðsettlement.€€Roy€offered€no€medical€proof€concerning€permanent€medical€injuries€or€impairmentÐ |*Ì%) Ðactually€resulting€from€the€accident.€€Such€evidence€would,€of€course,€flatly€contradict€her€laterÐ h+¸&* Ðtestimony€that€only€the€ambulance€bill€and€one€follow„up€visit€were€related€to€the€accident.€Ð ° ÐEssentially€what€the€Trial€Court€was€left€with€was€testimony€that€the€arm€pain€was€caused€by€theÐ œì Ðaccident,€and€was€cured€by€the€surgery.€€We€find€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€TrialÐ ˆØ ÐCourtððs€finding€that€the€surgery€was€related€to€the€automobile€accident.€€This€was€based€on€RoyððsÐ tÄ Ðown€testimony,€albeit€conflicting€most€of€the€time.€€Roy€stated€(at€least€at€one€point)€the€surgery€wasÐ `° Ðrelated€to€the€accident,€the€surgery€was€for€left€arm€pain€and€numbness€which€did€not€exist€prior€toÐ L œ Ðthe€accident,€and€the€surgery€took€care€of€this€left€arm€problem.€€In€light€of€this,€we€cannot€concludeÐ 8 ˆ ÐRoy€proved€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€she€was€not€made€whole€by€the€$25,000.00Ð $ t Ðsettlement.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€to€the€second€and€fourth€issues,€we€conclude:€1)€Roy€failed€to€prove€by€aÐ è 8  Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€she€was€not€made€whole€by€the€$25,000.00€settlement;€and€2)€theÐ Ô$  Ðevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Courtððs€findings€that€the€surgery€and€$22,420.34Ð À  Ðin€related€medical€expenses€were€related€to€the€automobile€accident.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àDefendantsðð€final€issue€involves€a€claim€the€Plan€Administrator€acted€arbitrarily€andÐ „Ô  Ðcapriciously€in€deciding€to€seek€subrogation€and/or€reimbursement.€€Our€standard€of€review€is€toÐ pÀ Ðdetermine€if€the€Plan€Administrator€acted€rationally.€€As€recently€noted€by€the€United€States€CourtÐ \¬ Ðof€Appeals€for€the€Sixth€Circuit:Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWhere,€as€here,€the€Plan€gives€the€Plan€Administrator€discretionaryÐ  p Ðauthority€to€construe€the€terms€of€the€plan,€we€review€the€PlanÐ  \ ÐAdministrator's€decision€under€the€arbitrary€and€capricious€standard.Ð øH ÐòòSee€Firestone€Tire€&€Rubber€Co.€v.€Bruchóó,€489€U.S.€101,€115,€103€L.Ð ä4 ÐEd.€2d€80,€109€S.€Ct.€948€(1989).€€Under€this€standard,€the€decisionÐ Ð  Ðof€the€Plan€Administrator€will€be€upheld€if€the€Plan€AdministratorÐ ¼  Ðacted€"rationally€in€light€of€the€Plan's€provisions."òò€Miller€v.Ð ¨ø ÐMetropolitan€Life€Ins.€Co.óó,€925€F.2d€979,€986€(6th€Cir.€1991).€Ð”ä` x` x ÐÌòòSmith€v.€Wal„Mart€Associates€Group€Health€Planóó,€238€F.3d€424€(TABLE),€2000€U.S.€App.€LEXISÐ l¼ Ð33993€at€*6€(6òòthóó€Cir.€2000)(footnote€omitted).Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` à€Defendants€make€several€arguments€as€to€why€the€decision€to€seek€reimbursementÐ 0"€  Ðwas€arbitrary€and€capricious.€€We€address€only€the€argument€not€necessarily€rejected€already€by€ourÐ #l! Ðconclusions€on€the€other€issues€(e.g.,€whether€it€was€arbitrary€and€capricious€to€seek€reimbursementÐ $X" Ðwhen€Roy€was€not€made€whole).€€Defendants€essentially€argue€the€Plan€only€authorizes€subrogationÐ ô$D # Ðand€not€reimbursement,€so€Plaintiffððs€attempt€to€seek€reimbursement€was€improper.€€We€believe€thisÐ à%0!$ Ðargument€puts€form€over€substance.€€The€point€of€the€subrogation€clause€in€the€Plan€is€to€enable€theÐ Ì&"% ÐPlan€to€recover€funds€from€third€parties€who€are€responsible€for€payments€made€to€a€PlanÐ ¸'#& Ðbeneficiary.€€The€Planððs€subrogation€clause€òòrequiresóó€beneficiaries€such€as€Roy€to:€ð ðexecute€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdeliver€instruments€and€papers€and€do€whatever€else€necessary€to€secure€such€rights€to€the€Plan,€andÐ )à$( Ðð8ð€do€nothing€either€before€or€after€payment€by€the€Plan€to€prejudice€such€rights.ðð€€In€our€opinion,Ð |*Ì%) Ðthis€was€accomplished€by€requiring€Roy€to€sign€the€Agreement.€€Defendants€have€not€provided€thisÐ h+¸&* ÐCourt€with€any€Plan€language€that€could€be€interpreted€even€remotely€as€prohibiting€the€PlanÐ ° ÐAdministrator€from€requiring€beneficiaries€to€sign€the€Agreement.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€also€note€we€have€not€been€provided€with€any€Plan€language€detailing€theÐ tÄ Ðdiscretionary€functions€available€to€the€Administrator.€€Defendants€have€the€duty€"to€prepare€a€recordÐ `° Ðwhich€conveys€a€fair,€accurate€and€complete€account€of€what€transpired€in€the€trial€court€with€respectÐ L œ Ðto€the€issues€which€form€the€basis€of€the€appeal."€€òòNickas€v.€Capadalisóó,€954€S.W.2d€735,€742€(Tenn.Ð 8 ˆ ÐCt.€App.€1997).€€In€the€absence€of€an€adequate€record€on€appeal,€this€Court€will€presume€the€trialÐ $ t Ðcourtððs€rulings€were€supported€by€sufficient€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€554,€559Ð  ` Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€Defendants€have€not€provided€this€Court€with€any€Plan€language€whichÐ ü L  Ðwould€prohibit€Plaintiff€from€seeking€reimbursement€or€otherwise€compel€a€conclusion€that€theÐ è 8  ÐAdministrator€did€not€act€rationally€in€light€of€the€Planððs€provisions.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€theÐ Ô$  Ðdecision€of€the€Trial€Court€is€correct€as€related€to€this€issue.€€Ð À  ÐÌà@  %ìàò òòòConclusionó óóóˆÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed,€and€this€cause€is€remanded€to€the€TrialÐ pÀ ÐCourt€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€be€required,€if€any,€consistent€with€this€Opinion,€and€forÐ \¬ Ðcollection€of€the€costs€below.€€The€costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€Appellants,€Deborah€RoyÐ H˜ Ðand€Kevin€Shepherd,€and€their€surety.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGEÐ ¼  Ð