Canlas v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 5/19/2016. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
ERNEST H. CANLAS
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 15-0702

:
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY

:

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently
insurance

case

pending
is

a

and

ready

motion

alternative,

for

summary

Metropolitan

Life

Insurance

for

14).

for

resolution

reconsideration

judgment
Company

filed

in

or,

by

(“Defendant”).

this

in

the

Defendant
(ECF

No.

The court now rules, no hearing being deemed necessary.

Local Rule 105.6.

For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion

will

as

be

analyzed

one

for

summary

judgment

and

will

be

granted.
I.

Background
A more detailed factual background may be found in a prior

memorandum opinion.

(See ECF No. 12, at 1-3).

On March 12,

2015, Plaintiff Ernest H. Canlas (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint
alleging that Defendant wrongly denied payment of his benefits
under group long-term disability insurance plans (the “Plans”)
that

were

provided

by

two

of

his

prior

employers,

the

Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (the “MWAA”) and the
Kaiser Permanente Foundation (“Kaiser Permanente”).

(ECF No.

1).

The complaint asserts that Defendant should not have offset

the amount of his Social Security Disability Income (“SSDI”)
benefits

from

each

Plan

and

that

Defendant

negligently

and

incorrectly calculated the amount Plaintiff was overpaid under
the Plans.
On December 22, the court granted in part and denied in
part Defendant’s unopposed motion to dismiss.
13).

Specifically, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim that

Defendant

improperly

administered

the

Plans

amount of SSDI benefits from each Plan.
13 ¶ 2).
the

(ECF Nos. 12;

by

reducing

(ECF Nos. 12, at 4-7;

The court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss as to

allegations

in

the

complaint

that

it

negligently

incorrectly calculated reductions of Plaintiff’s benefits.
No.

12,

the

at

7-9).

On

January

5,

2016,

Defendant

filed

or
(ECF
the

pending motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, for
summary judgment.

(ECF No. 14).

To date, Plaintiff has not

responded, and the time to do so has expired.
II.

Standard of Review
Defendant moves for reconsideration or, in the alternative,

for summary judgment.

Defendant argues that reconsideration is

appropriate

Defendant

Plaintiff’s

because
[c]omplaint

contained

“reasonably
no

claim

believed
that

that

[Defendant]

improperly withheld benefits outside the double counting of the
offset.”

(ECF No. 14-1, at 10).
2

The complaint did, however,

assert facts that, taken as true, stated a claim that Defendant
negligently

and

incorrectly

Plaintiff’s benefits.
the

time

showed

calculated

the

(See ECF No. 12, at 7).

Plaintiff’s

allegations

to

reduction

in

No evidence at
be

implausible.

Defendant now puts forth such evidence to show that the amount
of

overpayment

was

calculated

correctly.

Accordingly,

Defendant’s motion will be analyzed as a motion for summary
judgment.
Summary judgment is appropriate under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a)
when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and
the moving party is plainly entitled to judgment in its favor as
a matter of law.
242,

249

(1986),

In Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
the

Supreme

Court

of

the

United

States

explained that, in considering a motion for summary judgment,
the “judge’s function is not himself to weigh the evidence and
determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there
is a genuine issue for trial.”

A dispute about a material fact

is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”

Id. at 248.

Thus,

“the judge must ask himself not whether he thinks the evidence
unmistakably favors one side or the other but whether a fairminded jury could return a verdict for the [nonmoving party] on
the evidence presented.”

Id. at 252.

3

In undertaking this inquiry, a court must view the facts
and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom “in the light most
favorable to the party opposing the motion.”

Matsushita Elec.

Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)
(quoting

United

States

v.

Diebold,

Inc.,

369

U.S.

654,

655

(1962)); see also EEOC v. Navy Fed. Credit Union, 424 F.3d 397,
405 (4th Cir. 2005).
evidence

in

The mere existence of a “scintilla” of

support

is

not

sufficient to preclude an order granting summary judgment.

See

Liberty

the

Lobby,

477

of

the

U.S.

at

nonmoving

252.

party’s

Even

where,

case

as

here,

nonmoving party fails to respond, the requested relief is not
automatically granted.

See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e).

Rather, the

court must “review the motion, even if unopposed, and determine
from what it has before it whether the moving party is entitled
to summary judgment as a matter of law.”

Custer v. Pan Am. Life

Ins. Co., 12 F.3d 410, 416 (4th Cir. 1993).
III. Analysis
At the motion to dismiss stage, Defendant’s calculations of
overpayment and the amount by which it was seeking to reduce
Plaintiff’s
Defendant
errors

benefits

sent

and

to

was

unclear.

Plaintiff

on

miscalculations.

Furthermore,

December
(See

ECF

18,
No.

2014,
12,

a

letter

contained
at

7-9).

Defendant now admits that the letter the court considered at the
motion to dismiss stage contained errors, but avers that it
4

subsequently sent corrected letters to Plaintiff and has not
improperly withheld any benefits.
support

of

its

letters

it

assertions,

sent

to

(ECF No. 14-1, at 14-18).

Defendant

Plaintiff.

(See

attaches
ECF

the

Nos.

In

corrected

14-4;

14-6).

Moreover, because the full amount of Plaintiff’s SSDI benefits
was not clear at the motion to dismiss stage, Defendant attaches
additional

documentation

showing

benefits Plaintiff is receiving.

the

full

amount

of

SSDI

(See ECF No. 14-3).

The two revised letters Defendant attaches to its motion
for summary judgment correct the errors in the initial letter
and indicate that Defendant correctly determined the amount of
overpayment.

(See

ECF Nos. 14-4; 14-6).

Defendant clearly

articulates how it calculated the amount by which Plaintiff was
overpaid

in

the

letters

and

its

memorandum

supporting

its

motion.

Plaintiff received $2,397.00 in monthly primary SSDI

benefits starting in August 2013, and that amount increased to
$2,497.00 in January 2014.

(See ECF No. 14-1, at 5).

Plaintiff

also received $1,230.00 per month in family SSDI benefits, an
amount which was undisclosed and unaccounted for at the motion
to dismiss stage.

(See id.).

“The clear, unambiguous language

of each Plan mandates that Defendant reduce Plaintiff’s benefit
by the amount he receives in SSDI.”
Under
month.

the

MWAA

plan,

(ECF No. 12, at 7).

Plaintiff

(ECF No. 14-4, at 2).

received

$3,489.20

each

By its terms, $100.00 per month
5

is the minimum monthly benefit one can receive under the MWAA
plan.

(See ECF No. 14-1, at 7).

Defendant calculated that

Plaintiff was entitled to only this minimum amount because the
SSDI offset was greater than the amount of benefits Plaintiff
was receiving under the MWAA plan.

(See id.).

After accounting

for credits owed Plaintiff, Plaintiff was overpaid under the
MWAA plan by $44,809.93 and is entitled to a $100.00 monthly
payment once the overpayment is recovered.

(ECF No. 14-4, at

3).
Plaintiff

was

receiving

Kaiser Permanente plan.
Plaintiff

is

entitled

$3,411.44

per

month

(ECF No. 14-6, at 4).
to

70%

of

his

at

8).

$5,685.73.

Plaintiff’s

pre-disability

(ECF

No.

pre-disability

14-7,

at

4).

earnings

(See ECF No.

monthly

Thus,

the

Under this plan,

minus offsetting income, such as SSDI benefits.
14-1,

under

under

income
the

was

Kaiser

Permanente plan, Plaintiff is owed $3,980.01 minus the amount of
SSDI benefits he received each month.

(See ECF No. 14-1, at 8).

Accordingly,

credits,

after

accounting

for

Plaintiff

was

overpaid by $38,758.10 and is entitled to $341.01 per month once
the overpayment is recovered.

(ECF No. 14-6, at 2).

In sum, Defendant correctly calculated that Plaintiff was
overpaid

by

a

total

withholding

benefits

overpayment

is

amount
to

of

recover

recovered,

$83,568.03,
the

Plaintiff
6

and

overpayment.
will

be

is

properly
Once

entitled

the

to

a

combined monthly payment of $441.01 under the Plans.
Defendant’s

calculation

was

unclear

and

unsupported

Although
at

the

motion to dismiss stage, the undisputed facts presented in the
current record show that Defendant’s calculations are correct,
and it is entitled to summary judgment.
IV.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment will be granted.

A separate order will follow.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

7