Webb v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 49

ORDER once again GRANTING Defendant's 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment and DENYING Plaintiff's 10 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and 24 MOTION for Judgment. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. on 8/3/17. (jkl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
MELINDA WEBB,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION FILE
NO. 1:15-CV-2508-TWT

LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE
COMPANY OF BOSTON,
Defendant.

ORDER

This is an action to recover optional life insurance benefits and an accidental
death insurance benefit under ERISA. It is before the Court on remand from the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to determine whether the
Plaintiff reasonably relied on the Defendant’s statement. For the following reasons,
the Court finds that she did not reasonably rely on the Defendant’s statement, and
the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 21] is once again
GRANTED, and the Plaintiff’s Motions for Partial Summary Judgment and to
Permit Limited Discovery [Doc. 10] and for Judgment on the Administrative
Record [Doc. 24] are likewise DENIED.
I. Background
T:\ORDERS\15\Webb\remandEAB.wpd

To briefly recap the facts of this case, the Defendant, Liberty Life Assurance
Company of Boston, issued an insurance policy to Adobe Systems Incorporated.
The insurance policy funds life insurance and accidental death benefits under an
employee welfare benefit plan sponsored and maintained by Adobe pursuant to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). Adobe employed Ronald
Webb, who was covered under the plan and was the husband of the Plaintiff,
Melinda Webb.
On December 27, 2013, Mr. Webb died following a gunshot wound to the
head. The Coroner later determined that Mr. Webb’s death was the result of a selfinflicted gunshot wound to the head and that the death was a suicide. The Plaintiff
filed a claim for benefits under the policy with Liberty, but most of those benefits
were denied because of the policy’s suicide exclusions. Ms. Webb asked Liberty to
review its decision, but the Defendant did not change its opinion. Liberty informed
Ms. Webb of the denial of her appeal in a letter dated June 23, 2014 (“June 23
Letter”). In that letter, Liberty told Ms. Webb that, “At this time, the appeal process
has been exhausted and further review will be conducted by Liberty.”
On January 6, 2015, the deadline for Ms. Webb to file a claim passed under
the terms of the policy. On May 5, 2015, Ms. Webb’s lawyer sent Liberty a letter
inquiring about the further review mentioned in Liberty’s June 23 Letter. Ten days

T:\ORDERS\15\Webb\remandEAB.wpd

-2-

lateer, on May 15, 2015, Liberty responded, thanking Ms. Webb’s attorney for
“pointing out the typo in [its] letter.” Liberty said it had meant that no further
review would be conducted.
The Plaintiff then filed this action on June 12, 2015, more than six months
after the policy deadline for filing claims had passed. Liberty removed the case to
federal court and moved for summary judgment based on the contractual deadline
and the administrative record. This Court granted summary judgment on the
deadline alone, and the Plaintiff appealed.
On appeal, the Plaintiff argued that this Court had misread the limitation
provisions in the policy, and that Ms. Webb had relied on Liberty’s June 23 Letter
in delaying her claims. The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the Court’s reasoning
regarding the deadline. However, the Eleventh Circuit held that “[i]f Ms. Webb
believed the administrative review process was incomplete based on Liberty’s
statement [that it was conducting further review], and if an objectively reasonable
person in her place would have believed as much, the limitations period in this case
would be unreasonable...” The Eleventh Circuit, therefore, remanded to this Court
to make a determination in the first instance as to whether Ms. Webb reasonably
relied on Liberty’s typo, and, if necessary, address the administrative record.
II. Discussion

T:\ORDERS\15\Webb\remandEAB.wpd

-3-

The Eleventh Circuit has remanded this case for the limited purpose of
deciding whether Ms. Webb reasonably relied on the typo in Liberty’s June 23,
2015 letter, leading to her delay in filing her claim. The Court finds that she did
not.
The June 23 Letter contained language which clearly contradicted itself. It
said that the appeals process was “exhausted,” but also that further review would
be conducted. Given that these are two mutually exclusive concepts, a reasonable
person could certainly find this contradictory language confusing. However, faced
with such a situation, a reasonable person would have sought to clarify the
discrepancy.
At the time the June 23 Letter was sent, Ms. Webb still had nearly six
months remaining to file her claim, meaning that she also had nearly six months to
ask Liberty for clarification. She did not. Instead, Ms. Webb waited over ten
months before inquiring about the June 23 Letter. Given the frequent
correspondence between Ms. Webb and Liberty that occurred before the June 23
Letter, her delay can lead this Court to only one of two conclusions. Either Ms.
Webb unreasonably relied on the contradictory language by failing to inquire or
she understood that it was a typo and that Liberty had meant to say that no further
review would be conducted. In other words, either she knew, or she should have

T:\ORDERS\15\Webb\remandEAB.wpd

-4-

known that it was a typo. Whichever is true, neither would render the limitations
provision of the ERISA policy unreasonable. Accordingly, summary judgment
must be granted to Liberty.1
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. 21] is GRANTED, and the Plaintiff’s Motions for Partial
Summary Judgment and to Permit Limited Discovery [Doc. 10] and for
Judgment on the Administrative Record [Doc. 24] are DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 3 day of August, 2017.
/s/Thomas W. Thrash
THOMAS W. THRASH, JR.
United States District Judge

1

Because the limitations provision is reasonable, and because Ms. Webb
failed to abide by it, it is unnecessary to address the merits of Liberty’s denial of
benefits on the basis of the administrative record.

T:\ORDERS\15\Webb\remandEAB.wpd

-5-