David Sarruf v. Lilly Long Term Disability Plan and Lilly Life Insurance Plan

Sarruf · United States District Court for the Western District of Washington · January 13, 2026 · No. C24-0461-JCC

Summary

The court awards Plaintiff $112,050 in attorney fees and $7,026.73 in costs under ERISA after previously remanding his benefits claim to the plan administrator. The court finds the Defendants’ arguments against a fee award meritless but reduces the requested fees by applying a $500 blended hourly rate and excluding time spent on matters outside the litigation.

Court
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
Writing for the Court
John C. Coughenour
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
Decision date
January 13, 2026
Docket number
C24-0461-JCC
Procedural posture
Following a partial grant of Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and remand of his ERISA benefits claim to the plan administrator, the court determined the amount of attorney fees and costs previously awarded under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g).
Standard of review
The court evaluated the reasonableness of the requested fees under the Hummell factors and calculated the lodestar by determining the reasonable hours expended and a reasonable hourly rate.
Precedential value
unpublished district court order; precedential status unknown
Disposition
other

Topics

erisaemployee benefitsattorney feessummary judgmentcivil procedure

Practice areas

ERISAemployee benefitsattorney feescivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether an attorney-fee award was warranted under ERISA and the Ninth Circuit's Hummell factors.
  2. What hourly rate and number of hours were reasonable for calculating the ERISA attorney-fee award.
  3. Whether time spent on the pre-suit administrative appeal and post-remand matters was compensable as litigation-related work.

Holdings

  1. An attorney-fee award was warranted because the Hummell factors supported an award, including the plan administrator's unreasonable and bad-faith denial, the plan sponsor's ability to pay, the deterrent effect of the award, the significance of the ERISA issues, and the relative merits of the parties' positions.
  2. A blended hourly rate of $500 was reasonable for the ERISA litigation because the requested blended rate of $897.83 exceeded rates typically allowed in the district.
  3. Only hours reasonably incurred in support of the litigation were compensable; 43.1 hours spent on matters outside the litigation, including the administrative appeal, had to be excluded.

Key quotations

It seems self-evident (based on the prior ruling) that the factors support such an award here. (at 1)
Thus, the total award is $112,050 in attorney fees and $7,026.73 in costs. (at 4)

Factual background

Plaintiff prevailed in part on an ERISA benefits claim involving conflicting plan documents and federal guidance concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. The court had previously found the plan administrator's summary denial of Plaintiff's appeal wholly unreasonable and remanded the claim for reevaluation based on a full record. Plaintiff requested $239,900 in fees and $7,026.73 in costs for 267.2 hours of work by three attorneys, but 43.1 hours related to matters outside the litigation, principally the administrative appeal.

Procedural history

On July 3, 2025, the court partly granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, remanded the ERISA benefits claim to the plan administrator for reevaluation, and awarded Plaintiff reasonable attorney fees under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g). After requesting an accounting and briefing concerning the amount of fees and costs, the court excluded time spent on the administrative appeal and awarded $112,050 in attorney fees and $7,026.73 in costs.

Remand instructions

The underlying ERISA benefits claim remained remanded to the plan administrator for reevaluation based on a full record; this order itself set the attorney-fee and cost award.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…