Affonso v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al
Filing
106
ORDER by Judge Hamilton Granting 96 Motion for Reconsideration (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2011)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
GARY E. AFFONSO,
8
Plaintiff,
9
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
v.
No. C 10-5054 PJH
12
13
Defendants.
_______________________________/
Now before the court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of that portion of the
14
July 6, 2011 order applying the abuse of discretion standard of review to this matter.
15
Plaintiff contends that Morgan Stanley denies the existence of the plan document by which
16
its life insurance plans were created, leaving only the insurance policy to serve as the plan
17
document. To the extent that plaintiff seeks relief on the ground that the summary plan
18
description is not the plan document, the court denies any relief because the court has
19
already held that the plan document is the same document that serves as the summary
20
plan description. Doc. no. 78.
21
Plaintiff further argues that because the insurance policy does not grant discretion to
22
the plan administrator, the denial of benefits must be reviewed de novo. Doc. no. 96. The
23
court has determined that the SPD expressly refers to the insurance contract. Doc. no. 78
24
(citing Braun Decl., Ex. 1 at Morgan Stanley 000175 (“benefits provided by each of the
25
Plans are limited to the coverage of the insurance contract”)). Defendant MetLife contends
26
that the Plan document defers to the insurance policy only when there is a conflict as to the
27
benefits insured by those policies, yet defendant has not addressed the apparent conflict
28
raised by plaintiff in that the insurance policy lacks a grant of discretion to MetLife, whereas
1
the plan document does grant discretion. Based on the newly produced insurance policy
2
documents that have been presented on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, which were
3
not presented to the court on defendants’ motion for abuse of discretion review, the court
4
concludes that reconsideration is proper under Civil Local Rule 7-9 and that defendants
5
have not met their burden to show that the abuse of discretion standard of review is
6
applicable under Grosz-Salomon v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1154, 1161-62 (9th
7
Cir. 2001).
withdrawn to the extent that it established the standard of review, and the de novo standard
10
of review will be applied. See Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 964 (9th
11
For the Northern District of California
The order granting defendants’ motion for abuse of discretion review is hereby
9
United States District Court
8
Cir. 2006) (en banc).
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
Dated: October 13, 2011
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?