Allan Hamilton v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance

378 F. App'x 717

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Even if we were to review the Plan Administrator’s interpretation of “Total Disability” and “Totally Disabled” de novo, plaintiff would not be entitled to this kind of benefit. The Plan’s language is unambiguous, and plaintiff does not satisfy its requirement that he be “earning less than 20% of [his] Pre-disability Earnings.” [ER 260-61] Because the definition of these terms is also conspicuous and unambiguous, plaintiff cannot claim that any expectations he had to the contrary were reasonable. See Peterson v. Am. Life & Health Ins. Co., 48 F.3d 404, 411-12 (9th Cir.1995).

In light of these considerations, we have no need to reach plaintiffs other assertions of error, which are unavailing in any event. The district court’s rulings on discovery and the administrative record were not abuses of discretion.

AFFIRMED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.