Heng v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

Filing 41

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 27 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

Plaintiff,

8

11

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.

9
10

Case No. 16-cv-04136-EMC

PETRA HENG,

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,

Docket No. 27

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Defendant.
12

I.

13

INTRODUCTION

Thomas Heng worked at DecisionView, Inc. (DecisionView) from August 31, 2011 until

14
15

June 30, 2012 and was co-employed by TriNet Group, Inc. (TriNet), which provided

16

DecisionView with payroll and benefits services. Heng ceased to be a TriNet employee after June

17

30, 2012, when DecisionView terminated its contract with TriNet, effective July 1, 2012. On July

18

25, 2012, Heng died in a hiking accident.
Decedent Thomas Heng is survived by his wife, Plaintiff Petra Heng. Plaintiff submitted a

19
20

claim for basic life benefits, basic accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) benefits, and

21

Voluntary AD&D benefits. Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (MetLife) paid Plaintiff

22

basic life benefits but denied AD&D claims. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Defendant

23

MetLife, seeking the AD&D benefits. Docket No. 1.
Pending before the Court is Defendant MetLife‟s motion for summary judgment. Docket

24
25

No. 27. The Court grants the motion.

26

A.

Background

27

1.

Background to the Claim for AD&D Benefit

28

Plaintiff was married to Thomas Heng, a system administrator for DecisionView. Docket

1

No. 27 at 1. DecisionView had contracted with TriNet, an entity that contracts with other business

2

to manage their payroll and benefits services. Id. Pursuant to an agreement between TriNet and

3

DecisionView, TriNet was Decedent‟s co-employer, beginning in August 31, 2011. Id. at 6.

4

Heng participated in TriNet‟s Employee Benefit Insurance Plan (the Plan), which is an employee

5

welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as

6

amended (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. Id. at 1. He elected to supplement the basic plan of

7

term life insurance and AD&D insurance in the flat amount of $20,000 by adding voluntary

8

AD&D coverage of $750,000 at a cost to him of $7.50 per each day period. Docket No. 29 at 2.

9

This premium payment was deducted from Decedent‟s semi-monthly paycheck, and he made his
first premium payment on September 15, 2011. Id. Heng designated his wife Petra as his sole

11

beneficiary. Id.
DecisionView terminated its agreement with TriNet, effective July 1, 2012. AR1 164, 528.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

13

Its employees, including Heng, were no longer co-employed by TriNet after June 30, 2012. Id.

14

Decedent‟s June 30, 2012 paycheck included the last deduction for his semi-monthly AD&D

15

premium contribution. AR 527-28. TriNet sent Decedent a COBRA packet that addressed how to

16

continue life insurance, but TriNet has no record of Decedent contacting it about COBRA or

17

converting his basic life insurance coverage under the Plan to an individual policy. AR 528.

18

Around July 22, 2012, Heng died while hiking. AR 195. As Decedent‟s beneficiary,

19

Plaintiff submitted a claim for basic life, basic AD&D, and Voluntary AD&D benefits dated

20

August 6, 2012, along with a death certificate indicating that death was the result of a mountain

21

hiking accident. AR 177-79. Defendant MetLife, the Plan‟s claim administrator, paid the basic

22

life claim on the basis that Decedent died within the conversion period, but determined that

23

Plaintiff did not qualify for either basic or voluntary AD&A benefits because coverage had

24

terminated on June 30, 2012 and did not convert. AR 186, 206-08. On February 11, 2013,

25

Plaintiff appealed the denial of her claim. AR 237-42. MetLife affirmed its denial on October 1,

26

2013, which Plaintiff appealed on February 10, 2014. AR 538-41, 565-67. On October 23, 2014,

27
1

28

Citations to AR are to the applicable Plan document and the Administrative Record filed
concurrently with Defendant‟s motion for summary judgment, Docket No. 27-2, 3.
2

1

MetLife responded to Plaintiff‟s appeal by upholding the denial of the claim. AR 578-82.

2

On July 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed this suit. Docket No. 1.

3

2.

4

MetLife issued Group Insurance Policy No. 1164937-1-G (the Policy) to TriNet to fund

The MetLife Group Policy

5

the life and AD&D benefits under the Plan. AR 1-137. TriNet served as the Plan‟s administrator

6

and sponsor. AR 48, 134. MetLife served as the Plan‟s claim administrator. Docket No. 27 at 2.

7

The Plan provides basic life and AD&D coverages, AR 1-47, and supplemental life, dependent

8

life, and voluntary AD&D coverages, AR 52-133. While co-employed by TriNet, Decedent was

9

covered under the plan for certain benefits, including basic life insurance in the amount of
$20,000, basic AD&D coverage in the amount of $20,000, and Voluntary AD&D coverage in the

11

amount of $750,000. AR 164, 185.
a.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

13
14
15
16

Basic Life and Basic AD&D

The Plan pays Basic Life benefits in the amount of $20,000, AR 23, and Basic AD&D
benefits, in its full amount, “equal to [the participant‟s] Life Insurance,” AR 24.
The Plan‟s Basic Life and Basic AD&D section entitled “DATE YOUR INSURANCE
ENDS” states:

17

Your insurance will end on the earliest of:

18

for all coverages
1. the date the Group Policy ends; or
2. the date insurance ends for Your class; or
3. the end of the period for which the last premium has been paid for
You; or

19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

for Basic Life Insurance
4. the last day of the calendar month in which Your employment
ends; Your employment will end if You cease to be Actively at
Work in any eligible class, except as stated in the section entitled
CONTINUATION OF INSURANCE WITH PREMIUM
PAYMENT; or
5. the last day of the calendar month in which You retire in
accordance with the Policyholder‟s retirement plan; or
for Accidental Death and Dismemberment Insurance
6. the last day of the calendar month in which Your employment
ends; Your employment will end if You cease to be Actively at
Work in any eligible class, except as stated in the section entitled
CONTINUATION OF INSURANCE WITH PREMIUM
PAYMENT; or
3

7. the last day of the calendar month in which You retire in
accordance with the Policyholder‟s retirement plan.

1
2

AR 28-29 (emphasis in original). The Plan further advises the participant to “refer to the section

3

entitled LIFE INSURANCE: CONVERSION OPTION FOR YOU for information concerning the

4

option to convert to an individual policy of life insurance if Your Life Insurance ends.” AR 29.

5
6
7
8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

13

The section entitled “LIFE INSURANCE: CONVERSTION OPTION FOR YOU”
provides:
If Your life insurance ends for any of the reasons stated below, You
have the option to buy an individual policy of life insurance (“new
policy”) from Us during the Application Period in accordance with
the conditions and requirements of this section. This is referred to
as the “option to convert”. Evidence of Your insurability will not be
required.
When You Will Have the Option to Convert
You will have the option to convert when:


14
15
16

Your life insurance ends because:
 You cease to be in an eligible class;
 Your employment ends;
 this Group Policy ends, provided You have been insured for
life insurance for at least 5 continuous years; or
 this Group Policy is amended to end all life insurance for an
eligible class of which You are a member, provided You
have been insured for at least 5 continuous years.

17

...

18

Application Period

19

If You opt to convert Your Life Insurance for any of the reasons
stated above, We must receive a completed conversion application
form from You within 31 days after the date Your Life Insurance
ends.

20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Option Conditions
The option to convert is subject to the following:
...
D. the new policy will be issued without an accidental death and
dismemberment benefit, an accelerated benefit option, a waiver of
premium benefit or any other rider or additional benefit . . . .
Maximum Amount of the New Policy
...
4

If Your life insurance ends for any other reason, the maximum
amount of insurance that You may elect for the new policy is the
amount of Your life insurance which ends under this Group Policy.

1
2

If You Die Within 31 Days After Your Life Insurance Ends

3

If You die within 31 days after Your life insurance ends, Proof of
Your death must be sent to Us. When We receive such Proof with
the claim, We will review the claim and if We approve it will pay
the Beneficiary. The amount We will pay is the amount You were
entitled to convert.

4
5
6
7

AR 35-36 (emphasis in original).

8

b.

Supplemental life, Dependent Life, and Voluntary AD&D

The Plan‟s section for Supplemental Life, Dependent Life, and Voluntary AD&D benefits

9

provides six options for Voluntary AD&D benefits, of which Decedent chose Option 6 that

12
For the Northern District of California

provides one of six options for life insurance. Decedent did not choose any. The Plan also

11

United States District Court

10

increases the benefit to $750,000. AR 78, 80, 185.
Coverage under this section takes effect as follows:

13
14

Enrollment When First Eligible

15
16

If You complete the enrollment process within 30 days of becoming
eligible for insurance, such insurance will take effect as follows:

17



18
19
20
21

if You are not required to give evidence of Your insurability,
such insurance will take effect on the date You become eligible
for such insurance if You are Actively at Work on that date. You
are not required to give evidence of Your insurability for
Voluntary Accidental Death and Dismemberment Insurance.

AR 92 (emphasis in original). Participants become eligible on the date they enter the class of
TriNet‟s full-time employees. AR 91.

22

The Plan‟s Supplemental Life, Dependent Life, and Voluntary AD&D section entitled

23

“DATE YOUR INSURANCE ENDS” contains virtually the same language as that in the Plan‟s

24

Basic Life and Basic AD&D. AR 94-95.2 It further advises the participant to “refer to the section

25
26
27
28

2

The section provides:
Your insurance will end on the earliest of:
for all coverages
5

1

entitled LIFE INSURANCE: CONVERSION OPTION FOR YOU for information concerning the

2

option to convert to an individual policy of life insurance in Your Life Insurance ends.” AR 95.
The Plan‟s section on Supplemental Life, Dependent Life, and Voluntary benefits has a

3
4

conversion provision identical to the one in the Basic Life and Basic AD&D. AR 113-14.3

5

1. the date the Group Policy ends; or
2. the date insurance ends for Your class; or
3. the end of the period for which the last premium has been paid for
You; or

6
7
8

for Supplemental Life Insurance
4. the last day of the calendar month in which Your employment
ends; Your employment will end if You cease to be Actively at
Work in any eligible class, except as stated in the section entitled
CONTINUATION OF INSURANCE WITH PREMIUM
PAYMENT; or
5. the last day of the calendar month in which You retire in
accordance with the Policyholder‟s retirement plan; or

9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

for Accidental Death and Dismemberment Insurance
6. the last day of the calendar month in which Your employment
ends; Your employment will end if You cease to be Actively at
Work in any eligible class, except as stated in the section entitled
CONTINUATION OF INSURANCE WITH PREMIUM
PAYMENT; or
7. the last day of the calendar month in which You retire in
accordance with the Policyholder‟s retirement plan.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

AR 94-95 (emphasis in original).
3

The section entitled “LIFE INSURANCE: CONVERSTION OPTION FOR YOU” provides:

22

If Your life insurance ends for any of the reasons stated below, You
have the option to buy an individual policy of life insurance (“new
policy”) from Us during the Application Period in accordance with
the conditions and requirements of this section. This is referred to
as the “option to convert”. Evidence of Your insurability will not be
required.

23

When You Will Have the Option to Convert

24

You will have the option to convert when:

25



20
21

26
27
28

Your life insurance ends because:
 You cease to be in an eligible class;
 Your employment ends;
 this Group Policy ends, provided You have been insured for
life insurance for at least 5 continuous years; or
 this Group Policy is amended to end all life insurance for an
eligible class of which You are a member, provided You
have been insured for at least 5 continuous years.
6

1

3.

MetLife Group Life Booklet

2

The MetLife Group Life Booklet provides that “Conversion is available on all Group Life

3

insurance coverages. Conversion is not available on AD&D coverage.” Docket No. 29-1 Exhibit

4

C to the Declaration of Wesley M. Lowe (emphasis in original). There is no evidence that

5

MetLife or TriNet provided the MetLife Group Life Booklet to Decedent or that Decedent

6

received the Booklet prior to the date when his insurance under the MetLife Group Policy ended.

7

This Booklet, under the column entitled “Conversion” and to the right of the box that provides

8

“How do I enroll/apply for coverage,” states that the employee “will receive a Notice of

9
10

...

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

Application Period

13

If You opt to convert Your Life Insurance for any of the reasons
stated above, We must receive a completed conversion application
form from You within 31 days after the date Your Life Insurance
ends.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Option Conditions
The option to convert is subject to the following:
...
D. the new policy will be issued without an accidental death and
dismemberment benefit, an accelerated benefit option, a waiver of
premium benefit or any other rider or additional benefit . . . .
Maximum Amount of the New Policy
...
If Your life insurance ends for any other reason, the maximum
amount of insurance that You may elect for the new policy is the
amount of Your life insurance which ends under this Group Policy.
If You Die Within 31 Days After Your Life Insurance Ends
If You die within 31 days after Your life insurance ends, Proof of
Your death must be sent to Us. When We receive such Proof with
the claim, We will review the claim and if We approve it will pay
the Beneficiary. The amount We will pay is the amount You were
entitled to convert.
AR 113-14 (emphasis in original).
7

1

Conversion form from your Group Life Benefits Recordkeeper.” Id.

2

4.

TriNet Benefits Guidebook & Summary Plan Description

3

The 2011-2012 TriNet Benefits Guidebook and Summary Plan Description (SPD) at

4

Chapter 16, Section 16.3 explains two types of TriNet life insurance and AD&D coverage as

5

follows:

6

Basic Life Insurance
Paid for by Your Worksite

7
8
9

Supplemental Life Insurance
Paid by You

Life Insurance & AD&D

Plans

Supplemental Life Insurance
Spouse Domestic Partner Life Insurance
Child Life Insurance
Supplemental AD&D

10

AR 499.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

Section 16.5 provides under “Conversion” that the employee “may generally purchase

13

individual life insurance benefits from MetLife when . . . [his or her] TriNet benefits coverage

14

terminates.” AR 500. Section 16.8, entitled “Supplemental AD&D Coverage,” states that the

15

employee “may elect supplemental AD&D coverage.” AR 504. Section 16.8 further states that

16

“if you die as result of an accident, your beneficiaries will receive the full amount of coverage.”

17

Id. SPD is silent about whether the AD&D coverage can be converted to an individual policy

18

when the insurance under the MetLife Group Policy ends.

19

5.

20

The only documents TriNet provided to Heng when his employment with TriNet ended are

21

TriNet COBRA Guide and Notice of Group Life Insurance Conversion

the TriNet COBRA Guide and COBRA Notice. AR 528; Docket No. 33 at 2.

22

The TriNet COBRA Guide states that while “Continuation of TriNet life insurance

23

coverage is not available through federal COBRA, . . . you (the employee) can purchase an

24

individual plan from MetLife if MetLife receives a completed conversion application from for

25

[sic] you within 31 days after the date your TriNet insurance ends.” Docket No. 29-1 Exhibit B to

26

the Declaration of Wesley M. Lowe. The TriNet COBRA Guide is silent about whether the

27

AD&D coverage can be converted to an individual policy when the insurance under the MetLife

28

Group Policy ends.
8

The Notice of Group Life Insurance Conversion Privilege is silent about whether AD&D

1
2

coverage can be continued or converted to an individual policy when the insurance under the

3

MetLife Group Police terminates. Docket No. 29-1 Exhibit D to the Declaration of Wesley M.

4

Lowe.
II.

5
6
7

A.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard
A principal purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to identify and dispose of

judgment is proper when the “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions

10

on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material

11

fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

12
For the Northern District of California

factually unsupported claims. Celotex Corp. v. Cattrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). Summary

9

United States District Court

8

A party moving for summary judgment, who does not have the ultimate burden of

13

persuasion at trial, must produce evidence which either negates an essential element of the non-

14

moving party‟s claims or show that the non-moving party does not have enough evidence of an

15

essential element to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial. Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co.

16

v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000).

17

Once the moving party meets his or her initial burden, the non-moving party must go

18

beyond the pleadings and by its own evidence “set forth specific facts showing that there is a

19

genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). In order to make this showing, the non-moving

20

party must “identify with reasonable particularity the evidence that precludes summary judgment.”

21

Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). It is not the Court‟s task to “scour the record

22

in search of a genuine issue of triable fact.” Id. (quoting Richards v. Combined Ins. Co., 55 F.3d

23

247, 251 (7th Cir.1995)). If the non-moving party fails to make this showing, the moving party is

24

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.

25

An issue of fact is “genuine” only if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact finder

26

to find for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986).

27

A fact is “material” if it may affect the outcome of the case. Id. at 248. “In considering a motion

28

for summary judgment, the court may not weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations,
9

1

and is required to draw all inferences in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Freeman

2

v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 723, 735 (9th Cir. 1997).

3

ERISA allows a participant in an employee benefit scheme to bring a civil action to

4

recover benefits due under the terms of a plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). Courts review a denial

5

of benefits challenged under § 1132(a)(1)(B) “under a de novo standard unless the benefit plan

6

gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or

7

to construe the terms of the plan.” Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115

8

(1989).
Here, Parties have stipulated that the Court should review the denial of benefits de novo.

9

summary judgment, the district court must decide whether there are genuine issues of material

12
For the Northern District of California

Docket No. 27 at 8; Docket No. 29 at 7. Under the de novo standard, “in considering motions for

11

United States District Court

10

fact, not whether there was substantial or ample evidence to support the plan administrator‟s

13

decision.” Mongeluzo v. Baxter Travenol Disability Benefit Plan, 46 F.3d 938, 942 (9th Cir.

14

1995). Thus, Defendant‟s argument – that the Court‟s review is limited to the evidence that was

15

before the claims administrator at the time of its determination and that Plaintiff maintains the

16

burden of proving entitlement to benefits, Docket No. 27 at 8-9 – does not apply to the pending

17

summary judgment motion.

18

B.

19

Interpretation of the Terms of the Plan and SPD
Defendant argues that it correctly denied Plaintiff‟s claims for AD&D benefits under the

20

clear and unambiguous terms of the Plan and the 2011-2012 TriNet Benefits Guidebook and

21

Summary Plan Description (SPD). Docket No. 27 at 9-10, 13-14. Reading the Plan and SPD in

22

the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court agrees with Defendant and finds no genuine issues

23

of material fact.

24

The Plan‟s sections entitled “DATE YOUR INSURANCE ENDS” provide

25

Your insurance will end in the earliest of
for all coverages
...
3. the end of the period for which the last premium has been paid for
You; or
for Basic Life Insurance/for Supplemental Life Insurance

26
27
28

10

1
2
3
4

4. the last day of the calendar month in which Your employment
ends . . . or
...
for (Voluntary) Accidental Death and Dismemberment
Insurance
6. the last day of the calendar month in which Your employment
ends . . . .

5

AR 28-29, 94-95 (emphasis in original). The SPD provides: “Your participation in the TriNet

6

Benefits Plan will terminate on the last day of the month in which any of these events occur a. The

7

date you cease to be employed by TriNet . . . .” AR 469.

8
9

DecisionView terminated its contract with TriNet effective July 1, 2012, and Decedent‟s
last day of employment was June 30, 2012. Docket No. 29 at 2; Docket No. 33 at 2. Thus, under
the terms of the Plan and the SPD, Decedent‟s coverage for Basic Life, AD&D, and Voluntary

11

AD&D ended on June 30, 2012.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

When Heng‟s employment ended, he had the option to convert his life insurance coverage

13

to “an individual policy of life insurance” up to “the amount of life insurance” which ended under

14

the Plan. AR 29, 95. However, the Plan explicitly excludes AD&D coverage from converted

15

individual policies: it states “the new policy will be issued without an accidental death and

16

dismemberment benefit.” AR 35, 113.

17
18
19

Plaintiff‟s interpretation of the terms of the Plan to the contrary fails to raise a genuine
issue of material fact, even when viewed in the light most favorable to her.
First, Plaintiff argues that “the MetLife Group Policy is fundamentally a group life

20

insurance policy that includes accidental death and dismemberment insurance as an additional

21

benefit” because “[t]he face page of MetLife‟s Certificate of Insurance for Thomas Heng, effective

22

date 8/31/2011 (Exhibit A to the Lowe Dec) refers to the type of insurance being extended as

23

„Term Life & Accidental Death & Dismemberment Insurance.‟” Docket No. 29 at 8

24

(emphasis in original). Although it is true that the Certificate combines term life and accidental

25

death and dismemberment in one group policy under one group policy number (1164937-1-G),

26

there are two distinct types of coverage. If the Policy were a life insurance that automatically

27

includes AD&D benefits, the Certificate would not have referred to the insurance as a term life

28

and AD&D insurance.
11

Second, Plaintiff argues that the sections entitled “DATE YOUR INSURANCE ENDS”

1
2

inform that the Policy treats life insurance and AD&D insurance as one type of insurance. Docket

3

No. 29 at 8. However, these sections explain the procedure for basic life insurance and AD&D

4

insurance separately under different subsections titled in bold type. AR 28-29, 94-95. In addition,

5

the Plan‟s title page expressly states that it concerns more than one distinct type of insurance: one

6

includes “Basic Life Insurance” and “Accidental Death and Dismemberment Insurance,” AR 1;

7

and the other includes “Supplemental Life Insurance,” “Dependent Life Insurance,” and

8

“Voluntary Accidental Death and Dismemberment Insurance,” AR 52. Moreover, the Basic Life

9

and AD&D Policy‟s section titled “SCHEDULE OF BENEFITS” defines benefits in two

& Dismemberment Insurance (AD&D) For You.” AR 24. The supplemental insurance Plan

12
For the Northern District of California

different subsections, one titled “Life Insurance For You” and another titled “Accidental Death

11

United States District Court

10

includes similar provisions. AR 77, 80.
Third, Plaintiff disputes that the Plan excludes AD&D coverage from Heng‟s converted

13
14

insurance, although she concedes that the Plan states that “the new policy will be issued without

15

an accidental death and dismember benefit.” Docket No.29 at 10. Specifically, Plaintiff argues

16

that this limitation in the Plan is “ambiguous and confusing given its placement and location and

17

especially when viewed in the context of MetLife‟s attempt to provide notice of this limitation.”

18

Id. However, the limitation is plainly stated; it is not ambiguous or confusing because it is located

19

under the section that discusses conversion option and is set apart by its own separate subsection

20

titled “Option Conditions.”

21

C.

Whether Decedent‟s Premium Payments Created Coverage
Plaintiff argues that premiums are prospective and that coverage existed in July 2012,

22
23

when the death occurred, because Decedent paid his last premiums in June 2012. Docket No. 29

24

at 15-16. However, Defendant provided administrative record that Decedent‟s date of hire with

25

TriNet was August 31, 2011, which is also the effective date under the terms of the Plan and the

26

effective date listed on the employer‟s claim statement. AR 28, 92, 184-85.4 Decedent‟s first

27
4

28

First, the Basic Life and AD&D Insurance provides under the section entitled “DATE YOUR
INSURANCE TAKES EFFECT” that “When You complete the enrollment process for
12

1

premium contribution by payroll deduction was made on September 15, 2011. AR 268, 527.

2

Since coverage started on the date Decedent was hired, his premium payments were made in

3

arrears for the current month, not in advance for the following month. Plaintiff failed to present

4

any evidence to the contrary; she only requested that she be “allowed to conduct limited discovery

5

on this issue.” Docket No. 29 at 16. Thus, even in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, it seems

6

that Decedent‟s premium payment in June 2012 was a payment in arrears and did not create

7

coverage for July 2012 – the month in which the death occurred.

8

///

9

///

10

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

13
14
15
16
17
18

Noncontributory Insurance, such insurance will take effect on the date You become eligible,
provided You are Actively at Work on that date.” AR 28. It also provides under the section
entitled “DATE YOU ARE ELIGIBLE FOR INSURANCE” that “You may only become
eligible for the insurance available for Your eligible class as shown in the SCHEDULE OF
BENEFITS.” Id. Coverage for basic life and basic AD&D insurance is effective on the date the
participant enters the class of TriNet‟s full-time employees and is actively at work.
Second, the Supplemental Life, Dependent Life, and Voluntary AD&D Insurance
provides:
Enrollment When First Eligible

19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

If You complete the enrollment process within 30 days of becoming
eligible for insurance, such insurance will take effect as follows:


if You are not required to give evidence of Your insurability,
such insurance will take effect on the date You become eligible
for such insurance if You are Actively at Work on that date. You
are not required to give evidence of Your insurability for
Voluntary Accidental Death and Dismemberment Insurance.

AR 92 (emphasis in original). Since Heng was not required to give evidence of his insurability for
Voluntary AD&D benefits, under the clear terms of the Plan, coverage for these benefits took
effect on the date Heng entered the class of TriNet‟s full-time employees.
Third, the life insurance claim form filled out by TriNet shows that “the effective date of
amount of insurance being claimed” for Thomas Heng was August 31, 2011. AR 184. The claim
form also shows that the effective dates for basic life, AD&D, and voluntary AD&D insurance are
August 31, 2011 and that Heng was a TriNet employee as of August 31, 2011. AR 185.
13

1

D.

Whether California Insurance Code § 10209 Requires Inclusion of AD&D Benefits in the

2

Conversion Period Life Insurance Coverage

3

Plaintiff argues that AD&D benefits should be extended into the conversion period

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22

because California Insurance Code § 10209 requires it. Docket No. 29 at 12.
Section 10209 provides:
(a) Except as provided by Sections 10203.5 and 10203.8, the policy
shall contain a provision that the insurer will issue to the employer
for delivery to the insured employee an individual certificate setting
forth:
...
(2) A provision that if the employment terminates for any reason
whatsoever and the employee applies to the insurer within 31 days
after the termination, paying the premium applicable to the class of
risk to which he or she belongs and to the form and amount of the
policy at his or her then attained age, he or she is entitled, without
producing evidence of insurability, to the issue by the insurer of any
individual life policy in any one of the forms, other than term
insurance, customarily issued by the insurer.
(3) A statement that the policy in lieu of group insurance will be in
an amount equal to the amount of his or her protection
under the group insurance at the time of the termination.
(4) A provision that if the employee dies during the 31-day period
within which he or she is entitled to have an individual policy issued
to him or her in accordance with this section and before the policy
shall have become effective, the amount of life insurance that the
employee is entitled to have issued to him or
her under the individual policy shall be payable as a claim under the
group policy, whether or not application for the individual policy or
the payment of the first premium therefor has been made.
Cal. Ins. Code § 10209 (West).
Section 10209 does not apply to Plaintiff‟s AD&D coverage. Section 10209 appears in the

23

“Group Life Policies” chapter of the insurance code. Cal. Ins. Code § D. 2, Pt. 2, Ch. 2, Refs &

24

Annos (West). The Ninth Circuit has held that section 10209 does not apply to accidental death

25

policies in Henkin v. Northrop Corp., 921 F.2d 864 (9th Cir. 1990). In holding so, the Ninth

26

Circuit relied on the California Supreme Court‟s dicta in Williams v. American Casualty Co., 491

27

P.2d 398 (Cal. 1971). Henkin, 921 F.2d at 867-68. Although the Williams court referred to the

28

policy at issue therein as a disability policy, it was actually referring to an accidental death &
14

1

dismemberment policy – the opinion states:

2

The facts underlying this litigation are not in dispute. On August 1,
1962, American Casualty issued to Atlantic a master insurance
policy, VGA 18057, providing group insurance benefits for named
beneficiaries in the event of accidental death or dismemberment
of insured Atlantic employees; all Atlantic employees were eligible
to become „Persons Insured‟ under the policy upon written
application and payment of premium.

3
4
5
6

Williams, 491 P.2d at 400 (emphasis added); see Henkin v. Northrop Corp., 921 F.2d 864, 868

7

(9th Cir. 1990) (“The policy in Williams was an accidental death and dismemberment policy, 6

8

Cal.3d at 269, 491 P.2d 398, 98 Cal.Rptr. 814, and yet was referred to throughout the opinion as a

9

disability policy.”). Thus, Section 10209 does not apply to Plaintiff‟s AD&D coverage.

10

E.

Whether MetLife Is Estopped from Denying Coverage
Both parties agree that ERISA preempts California estoppel law. Docket No. 27 at 19;

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

Docket No. 29 at 14. At issue is whether federal common law estops Defendant from denying

13

coverage.

14

Plaintiff argues that “[i]t can be reasonably inferred that Thomas Heng relied on a number

15

[sic] representations about the insurance which were contained in the MetLife Group Policy and

16

believed that these representations allowed him to convert the protection he had under the Group

17

Policy into an individual policy.” Docket No. 29 at 14. Although Plaintiff seems to suggest that

18

there are a number of representations in the Plan about conversion of the AD&D benefits, Plaintiff

19

fails to name any. Plaintiff only points to the certificate pages (AR 3, 54) and argues that “an

20

employee would think that all of the insurance and protection he had under the Group Policy could

21

be converted.” Id.

22
23
24

The Ninth Circuit has established four federal common law elements of equitable estoppel
that are applicable to an ERISA action:

26

(1) the party to be estopped must know the facts; (2) he must intend
that his conduct shall be acted on or must so act that the party
asserting the estoppel has a right to believe it is so intended; (3) the
latter must be ignorant of the true facts; and (4) he must rely on the
former's conduct to his injury.

27

Ellenburg v. Brockway, Inc., 763 F.2d 1091, 1095 (9th Cir. 1985). The Ninth Circuit has imposed

28

two additional prerequisites on a plaintiff attempting to allege a claim of equitable estoppel in an

25

15

1

ERISA action:

2

First, the provisions of the plan at issue must be ambiguous such that
reasonable persons could disagree as to their meaning or effect.
Greany v. Western Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 973 F.2d 812, 821
(9th Cir.1992). Second, representations must be made to the
employee involving an oral interpretation of the plan. Id. “Unless
both conditions are met . . . a beneficiary has no equitable estoppel
claim.” Greany, supra at p. 821–822, quoting Simmons v. Southern
Bell Tel. and Tel. Co., 940 F.2d 614, 618 (11th Cir.1991).

3
4
5
6
7

Pisciotta v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 91 F.3d 1326, 1331 (9th Cir. 1996).
Plaintiff raised an argument applying the first four factors but failed to state the latter two

8
9

factors. Docket No. 29 at 14-15. Even assuming that the terms of the Plan are ambiguous,
Plaintiff never argued that Defendant made any representations involving oral interpretations of

11

the Plan.
Plaintiff additionally argues that MetLife should be estopped from denying coverage

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

13

because neither TriNet COBRA Guide and COBRA Notice (the only documents TriNet provided

14

to Heng when his employment with TriNet ended, AR 528; Docket No. 33 at 2) provided any

15

notice that Decedent stood to lose his accidental death and dismemberment coverage when his

16

employment ended. Docket No. 33 at 2. This argument assumes that MetLife owes Heng a duty

17

to notify that a third-party employer‟s termination of a plan participant triggered the termination of

18

coverage under the terms of the Plan. However, Plaintiff failed to provide any authority for

19

imposing such a duty. In fact, the Ninth Circuit has rejected analogous attempts to impose notice

20

requirements on administrators for information already contained in the Plan documents and SPD.

21

See, e.g., Scharff v. Raytheon Co. Short Term Disability Plan, 581 F.3d 899, 908 (9th Cir. 2009)

22

(declining to requiring plan administrators to inform participants separately of time limits already

23

contained in a summary plan description). As discussed above, Plaintiff and Decedent were

24

already on notice of the termination by the clear terms of the Plan and SPD. AR 28-29, 94-95,

25

469.

26

Moreover, the cases cited in Plaintiff‟s supplemental briefing – Salterelli v. Bob Baker

27

Group Medical Trust, 35 F.3d 382; Haynes v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 32 Cal.4th 1198, 1212-

28

1215 (2004); Bareno v. Employer’s Life Ins. Co., 7 Cal.3d. 875 – fail to support her argument that
16

1

the allegedly required notice is also subject to the reasonable expectations doctrine. Unlike in

2

Salterelli and Haynes, Plaintiff does not and cannot argue that MetLife excluded coverage through

3

an inconspicuous provision in the Plan. Moreover, unlike in Bareno, which held that ambiguities

4

in certificate of insurance and notice of termination should be construed against the insurer,

5

Plaintiff does not allege any ambiguities in the certificate page or notice but only silence as to

6

AD&D conversion.
III.

7
8
9
10

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant‟s motion for summary
judgment. The Clerk is instructed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and close the file.
This order disposes of Docket No. 27.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15
16

Dated: July 27, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

17