Kimberly Stoddard v. First UNUM Life Ins Company

Fourth Circuit

Kimberly Stoddard v. First UNUM Life Ins Company

706 F. App'x 138

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 19, 2017

Docket16-2065

StatusUnpublished

This text of 706 F. App'x 138 (Kimberly Stoddard v. First UNUM Life Ins Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kimberly Stoddard v. First UNUM Life Ins Company, 706 F. App'x 138 (4th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

After paying plaintiff Kimberly H. Stod-dard long-term disability benefits for a decade, defendant First Unum Life Insurance Company terminated those benefits as of December 1, 2014. In these proceedings, Stoddard asserts that—although her benefits plan accords First Unum discretion in rendering eligibility determinations—First Unum acted unreasonably and violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court disagreed with Stoddard and awarded judgment to First Unum. See Stoddard v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., No. 1:15-ev-00965 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 1, 2016), EOF No. 36. Stoddard timely noted this appeal, and we possess jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review de novo the district court’s award of summary judgment to First Unum on Stoddard’s ERISA claim, applying the same standard employed by the district court in its assessment of First Unum’s benefits decision. See Harrison v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 773 F.3d 15, 20 (4th Cir. 2014). That is, because of the discretion conferred upon First Unum by the plan, we consider whether First Unum abused its discretion in terminating Stod-dard’s long-term disability benefits. See id. Under that deferential standard, we must uphold First Unum’s decision “if it is reasonable,” even if we “would have come to a different conclusion independently.” See United McGill Corp. v, Stinnett, 154 F.3d 168, 170-71 (4th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the briefs, the record, and the applicable authorities, we are satisfied that First Unum did not abuse its discretion in rendering its benefits decision against Stoddard. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment entered by the district court in favor of First'Unum.

AFFIRMED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

After paying plaintiff Kimberly H. Stod-dard long-term disability benefits for a decade, defendant First Unum Life Insurance Company terminated those benefits as of December 1, 2014. In these proceedings, Stoddard asserts that—although her benefits plan accords First Unum discretion in rendering eligibility determinations—First Unum acted unreasonably and violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court disagreed with Stoddard and awarded judgment to First Unum. See Stoddard v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., No. 1:15-ev-00965 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 1, 2016), EOF No. 36. Stoddard timely noted this appeal, and we possess jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review de novo the district court’s award of summary judgment to First Unum on Stoddard’s ERISA claim, applying the same standard employed by the district court in its assessment of First Unum’s benefits decision. See Harrison v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 773 F.3d 15, 20 (4th Cir. 2014). That is, because of the discretion conferred upon First Unum by the plan, we consider whether First Unum abused its discretion in terminating Stod-dard’s long-term disability benefits. See id. Under that deferential standard, we must uphold First Unum’s decision “if it is reasonable,” even if we “would have come to a different conclusion independently.” See United McGill Corp. v, Stinnett, 154 F.3d 168, 170-71 (4th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the briefs, the record, and the applicable authorities, we are satisfied that First Unum did not abuse its discretion in rendering its benefits decision against Stoddard. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment entered by the district court in favor of First'Unum.

AFFIRMED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

706 F. App'x 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kimberly-stoddard-v-first-unum-life-ins-company-ca4-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack