The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied the motion of a corporate insured to dismiss counterclaims for lack of standing, which were brought against it by its ERISA-regulated health insurer alleging overpayment of claims. The insurer's allegations were sufficient to establish its discretion or authority to adjudicate ERISA benefit claims. On Sept. 22, 2011, Encompass Office Solutions Inc. sued Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. d/b/a CIGNA and related parties (collectively, CIGNA), alleging breach of contract and violations of ERISA. CIGNA counterclaimed for overpayment under ERISA and related claims. The district court dismissed all of Encompass' claims except those of its state law breach of contract claims that were based on non-ERISA plans. The case came before the court on Encompass' motion to dismiss CIGNA counterclaims for lack of standing. The counterclaims centered on a scheme under which Encompass submitted claims for the payment of facility services to CIGNA even though Encompass could not provide such services. These improper claims, each of which amounted to approximately $6,200, allegedly caused CIGNA to wrongly pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to Encompass. The court noted that CIGNA-administered plans generally covered expenses for charges made by a licensed surgical facility for medical care, and provided a detailed definition of a 'free-standing surgical facility' that would qualify for such coverage. The court held that CIGNA's allegations regarding its discretion or authority to adjudicate claims for benefits under ERISA plans was sufficient to establish its status as a fiduciary under ERISA. CIGNA alleged that it was delegated by plan sponsors with the discretion or authority to adjudicate claims for benefits under the plans at issue, and that it brought its counterclaims to recover payments that were not reimbursable under plans it administered. The court further noted that CIGNA had clarified in its responsive briefing that its overpayment claim was limited to recovery of monies under the plans. Accordingly, the court denied Encompass' motion to dismiss based on prudential or statutory standing.