The opinion of the court was delivered by: Philip M. Frazier United States Magistrate Judge
FRAZIER, Magistrate Judge
Before the Court are three Motions for Summary Judgment. Defendant has filed two Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs. 51 & 58) and Plaintiff has filed one Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 64). Defendant's first Motion for Summary Judgment will be addressed first, while Defendant's second Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment will be addressed second and concurrently.
The facts relevant to all three of these Motions are as follows:
Plaintiff began working for Defendant on January 8, 2007. Defendant operates several State Beauty Supply stores throughout Southern Illinois and Southeastern Missouri. Plaintiff was a distribution sales consultant and would visit various salons throughout Southern Illinois to introduce new products, deliver orders and take new orders. On April 5, 2007, Plaintiff was in a car accident while between salon visits for Defendant. Following her accident, she did not return to work for Defendant.
In Defendant's employee handbook which was given to Plaintiff when she began working, it states that Defendant allows its full-time employees to participate in its health insurance plan after 90 days of employment. The handbook stated that Defendant would pay one-half of the insurance premium, and the employee would pay the other half. Prior to her accident, Plaintiff was a full-time employee who had not reached the end of the 90 day period.
Following her accident, Plaintiff's father spoke with Defendant's owners who agreed to let her enroll in the insurance plan. After enrolling in the insurance plan, Plaintiff began paying 100% of the insurance premiums. Plaintiff paid for -- and was therefore covered by -- this insurance for the period covering May 2007 through August 2007.
On September 29, 2007, Plaintiff cancelled her insurance coverage in an e-mail to one of Defendant's owners. Around this same time, Plaintiff told Defendant that she would be physically unable to return to work, at which time Plaintiff was terminated from her employment with Defendant.
Plaintiff has brought two counts in her Second Amended Complaint.
In Count I, Plaintiff states that under 28 U.S.C. § 1161, et seq., the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 ("COBRA"), insurance plan administrators are required to notify individuals covered under the Act, within 14 days, of that individual's right to elect continued health insurance coverage following a qualifying event, such as termination. Plaintiff argues that she was damaged when Defendant allegedly failed to provide her with this notice.
In Count II, Plaintiff claims that Defendant is liable for breach of contract under 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), and the common law of the State of Illinois. Plaintiff argues that under the terms and conditions of the employee handbook, Defendant was required to pay 50% of her insurance premiums, and the failure to do so resulted in a breach of contract.
Summary judgment is proper if the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of a party's position is insufficient; there must be evidence on ...