Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Brimberry

Ninth Circuit

Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Brimberry

653 F. App'x 561

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 30, 2016

Docket14-56209

StatusUnpublished

This text of 653 F. App'x 561 (Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Brimberry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Brimberry, 653 F. App'x 561 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

P. Kellie Brimberry appeals the district court’s ruling that she is entitled to only $375,000 in basic accidental death coverage as the beneficiary of her deceased husband’s ERISA life-insurance plan. On appeal, she contends that Prudential was obligated to pay $1 million in basic accidental death coverage, the sum of her basic term life and optional term life awards, because of various alleged ambiguities in the plan. The district court correctly interpreted the language of the provision in the plan governing basic accidental death. On de novo review, we affirm. See Babikian v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 63 F.3d 837, 839 (9th Cir. 1995).

The explicit language of the contested provision states, in relevant part, that the *562 amount payable for basic accidental death benefits is “equal to the amount for which you are insured under the Basic Employee Term Life Coverage.” The parties have stipulated that the amount payable for basic employee term life coverage is $375,000. Because this contractual language is “clear and explicit and does not lead to an absurd result, we ascertain [the parties’] intent from the written provisions and go no further.” See Helfand v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 10 Cal.App.4th 869, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 295, 299 (1992). Thus, Brimberry is entitled to only $375,000 in basic accidental death benefits.

All of Brimberry’s attempts to inject ambiguity into this provision are without merit. Adopting her interpretations of the phrases “as determined above” and “your amount of insurance” would either render portions of the accidental death provision superfluous or be contrary to how the average reader would interpret the plan based on its unambiguous language and logical organization. Nor is the provision at issue an ambiguous and unenforceable policy exclusion. Prudential is not denying coverage, but merely contesting the amount owed. See Haynes v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 32 Cal.4th 1198, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 68, 89 P.3d 381, 385 (2004).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

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

MEMORANDUM **

P. Kellie Brimberry appeals the district court’s ruling that she is entitled to only $375,000 in basic accidental death coverage as the beneficiary of her deceased husband’s ERISA life-insurance plan. On appeal, she contends that Prudential was obligated to pay $1 million in basic accidental death coverage, the sum of her basic term life and optional term life awards, because of various alleged ambiguities in the plan. The district court correctly interpreted the language of the provision in the plan governing basic accidental death. On de novo review, we affirm. See Babikian v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 63 F.3d 837, 839 (9th Cir. 1995).

The explicit language of the contested provision states, in relevant part, that the *562 amount payable for basic accidental death benefits is “equal to the amount for which you are insured under the Basic Employee Term Life Coverage.” The parties have stipulated that the amount payable for basic employee term life coverage is $375,000. Because this contractual language is “clear and explicit and does not lead to an absurd result, we ascertain [the parties’] intent from the written provisions and go no further.” See Helfand v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 10 Cal.App.4th 869, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 295, 299 (1992). Thus, Brimberry is entitled to only $375,000 in basic accidental death benefits.

All of Brimberry’s attempts to inject ambiguity into this provision are without merit. Adopting her interpretations of the phrases “as determined above” and “your amount of insurance” would either render portions of the accidental death provision superfluous or be contrary to how the average reader would interpret the plan based on its unambiguous language and logical organization. Nor is the provision at issue an ambiguous and unenforceable policy exclusion. Prudential is not denying coverage, but merely contesting the amount owed. See Haynes v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 32 Cal.4th 1198, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 68, 89 P.3d 381, 385 (2004).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

653 F. App'x 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prudential-insurance-co-of-america-v-brimberry-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack