the exception here. Like those relationships traditionally qualifying for the exception, the relationship of a participant and eligible dependent is born of and encompassed within contract, namely the Plan documents. See Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 571 F.3d at 310-11 (“[P]rivity has traditionally been understood as referring to the existence of a substantive legal relationship, such as by contract, from which it was deemed appropriate to bind one of the contracting parties to the results of the other party’s participation in litigation.” (emphasis added)). Moreover, McLaughlin and J.J.M. are indeed “accountable” to each other, Pelt, 539 F.3d at 1290, through the explicit terms of the benefits plan, which permit deduction from either for any funds owed to the Plan. See App. 37a (<HOLDING>). Their relationship here is thus distinct from
holding that although the plan cannot discharge the debt  the claimant may otherwise subject the debt to the provisions of a confirmed plan holding that erisa employee benefits plan was subrogated to all claims by covered individual against third party for all payments made by the plan recognizing that the plan may deduct amounts owed by a participant from future benefits to which the covered person or an immediate covered family member may otherwise be entitled until the amount due the plan has been satisfied emphasis added holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant holding that making intentional representations about the future of plan benefits may be an act of plan administration