Back to Federal guidance
Public prepaid legal association outside ERISA welfare plan
Summary In an amicus-style letter based on litigation allegations, DOL said a prepaid legal association soliciting the public appeared to be a business rather than a welfare plan established or maintained by an employer or employee organization. The assessment was expressly limited to the information then available.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)
Document number
P/OPINION 75-08
Date issued
November 14, 1975
Status
Unknown
EBSA's index does not mark withdrawn or superseded opinions; still posted on dol.gov as of 2026-10-26.
Status last verified October 26, 2026
Topics
Apply this to your situation
This page explains the general guidance. Ask about your specific situation and see what current federal labor law says, with citations.
About this page: The full text below is the official document from U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA). Ezel adds the plain-English summary and tracks the document's status. The official source linked on this page is authoritative for any reliance.
P/OPINION 75-08
3(1)
November 14, 1975
Dear :
I am writing with respect to your inquiry as to the
applicability of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 to the Association, Inc., the
Petitioner-Defendant in the above-captioned civil action.
We have reviewed the Petition for Removal and the Motion
to Remand (and attachments) in this matter. In our view,
it appears from these allegations that the Petitioner-
Defendant is not a plan within the meaning of section
3(1) of the Act. That section provides, in pertinent
part that an “employee welfare benefit plan” or “welfare
plan” is any plan, fund, or program which is established
by an employer or by an employee organization, or by both,
to the extent that such is established or maintained
for the purpose of providing for its participants or
beneficiaries, “through the purpose of insurance or
otherwise”, prepaid legal services.
We consider it significant that the Petitioner-Defendant
states in its petition for removal that it is engaged
in a business (paragraph 2) and that it is alleged in
Plaintiff’s state court petition that the Petitioner-
Defendant is soliciting participation by the public
(paragraphs 4 and 5, Ex. C), rather than being restricted
to persons in an employment relationship to the plan
sponsor (see § 3(16)(B) of the Act).
2
P/OPINION 75-08
Accordingly, it does not appear from the information
available to us at this time that the Petitioner-Defendant
is a plan, program or fund “established or maintained by
an employer or by an employee organization, or by both”
as required by section 3(1) of the Act.
I hope that these comments will be helpful. They are
intended to be in the nature of an amicus curiae statement,
and we would have no objection if you wished to transmit
copies of this letter to the parties. If we may be of
further assistance, please advise me.
Sincerely,
What does federal law require in your situation?
Ezel checks current federal labor law against your facts and answers with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace