the benefits to which she claims she is entitled through an equitable remedy such as a constructive trust on the proceeds. See Anweiler, 3 F.3d at 993. 8 . Once again, it is unclear what section this claim is brought under. Yet because Iwans apparently seeks individual relief in the form of the right to exercise the conversion of Mr. Iwans’s policy, and bases such relief on breach of fiduciary duties allegedly owed to Mr. Iwans personally, rather than to the Plan (as in Count I), the court construes this count as attempting to state a claim under § 1132(a)(3), not § 1132(a)(2). 9 . The court notes that Iwans has not stated a claim for detrimental reliance that would estop the insurers from denying conversion rights. See generally Reid v. Gruntal, 763 F.Supp. 672, 678 (D.Me.1991) (<HOLDING>). The Second Circuit has recognized that “under
holding that a plaintiff seeking individual relief under erisa  502a3 under a breach of fiduciary duty theory did not have a cause of action when the alleged breach of fiduciary duty was a failure to distribute benefits in accordance with the plan holding that claims for promissory estoppel may be pursued under  1132a3 even where no breach of fiduciary duty is alleged holding that an individual who brings a lawsuit pursuant to  1132a1b to challenge a denial of disability benefits does not also have a right to a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty under  1132a3 holding that monetary damages may be awarded in a  1132a3 claim because when sought as a remedy for breach of fiduciary duty restitution is properly regarded as an equitable remedy because the fiduciary concept is equitable holding that plaintiffs did not plead fraud where the complaint only alleged a breach of fiduciary duty