on every fiduciary”); Kenna v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 2005 WL 2175158, at *16 (D.N.H. Sept. 6, 2005) (ruling that, as Hartford Life was not the plan administrator, it did not have any obligation to provide the plaintiff with a copy of the SPD). Plaintiff argues that, at the very least, Defendant Hartford Life had a duty to provide understandable information about the rights and responsibilities under the plan because they interpreted the terms of the policy. However, she cites no statutory authority for this obligation, nor any case law so finding. The unambiguous language of the statute places the responsibility for provision of SPDs on plan administrators and not insurers. Kenna, 2005 WL 2175158, at *16; see Krauss v. Oxford Health Plans, Inc., 517 F.3d 614, 631 (2d Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). As Defendant Hartford Life did not owe a duty
holding that insurer was not the plan administrator and thus was not liable under erisa  502c for failing to disclose certain information holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant holding that district courts order remanding an erisa benefits determination to a plan administrator was nonfinal and therefore not appealable after the remand to plan administrator plan participant still could appeal the district courts decision that erisa preempted her state law claim and if successful she would be able to pursue punitive damage holding that erisa does not preempt the plaintiffs claim that the erisa plan administrator is liable for medical malpractice where the plaintiff premised the claim solely on state law and did not invoke the erisa plan holding that plan administrator that was also insurer operated under conflict of interest