Ward v. Aetna Life Insurance Company
Filing
36
ORDER denying 30 Motion for New Trial Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 03/11/2019 (Guirola, Louis)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JASON WARD
v.
PLAINTIFF
CAUSE NO. 1:17CV331-LG-RHW
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY
DEFENDANT
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
BEFORE THE COURT is the [30] Motion for New Trial pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e) filed by the plaintiff, Jason Ward, in this ERISA case. The defendant,
Aetna Life Insurance Company, filed a response in opposition to the Motion, but
Ward did not file a reply. After reviewing the submissions of the parties, the record
in this matter, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Motion for New
Trial should be denied.
BACKGROUND
Aetna issued a group long-term disability insurance plan to eligible
employees of Pacific Architects and Engineers Incorporated (hereafter “PAE”)
effective January 1, 2015. The plan required employees who did not enroll within
thirty-one days of eligibility to submit evidence of good health satisfactory to Aetna
at their own expense to obtain coverage. The plan granted Aetna discretion to
determine whether an employee’s claim for benefits should be granted, and Aetna
was responsible for paying any valid claims. On December 15, 2014, PAE hired
Ward, a renal cancer survivor, to work as an electrical engineer. Ward became
eligible for long-term disability coverage when he was hired, but he did not enroll in
the long-term disability plan within thirty-one days of eligibility.
Ward attempted to enroll in the long-term disability plan for the plan period
beginning January 1, 2016, but he did not attempt to provide evidence of good
health. Soon afterwards, tests confirmed that Ward’s cancer had spread to his lung.
Ward sought long-term disability benefits, but Aetna denied Ward’s claim because
he did not submit an evidence of insurability form demonstrating good health when
he enrolled in the long-term disability insurance plan. Ward appealed the denial of
his claim, asserting that he was told in writing that he had coverage. He also noted
that long-term disability insurance premiums had been deducted from his
paychecks. Aetna denied Ward’s appeal, and he filed this lawsuit asserting claims
for equitable relief pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) and long-term disability
benefits pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). The parties filed cross-motions for
summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Aetna.
Ward now seeks reconsideration of that order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
DISCUSSION
“A Rule 59(e) motion calls into question the correctness of a judgment.”
Templet v. Hydrochem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478 (5th Cir. 2004). There are three
grounds for altering a judgment under Rule 59(e): (1) an intervening change in
controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available, or (3)
the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Alexander v.
Wells Fargo Bank, 867 F.3d 593, 597 (5th Cir. 2017). Rule 59(e) motions are “not
-2-
the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could
have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment.” Templet, 367 F.3d at 478.
“Reconsideration of a judgment is an extraordinary remedy that should be used
sparingly.” Id.
Ward first reasserts his previous argument that the evidence of good health
provision in the plan was ambiguous. However, Motions to Reconsider “should not
be used to . . . re-urge matters that have already been advanced by a party.”
Nationalist Movement v. Town of Jena, 321 F. App’x 359, 364 (5th Cir. 2009).
Furthermore, as the Court previously held, the plan clearly required applicants to
provide evidence of good health to obtain coverage if they failed to enroll within
thirty-one days of eligibility. Ward does not dispute that he did not make any
attempt to provide evidence of good health. Thus, Ward has not demonstrated the
need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice on this basis.
Ward also repeats his argument that the denial of his claim was based on an
“inexcusable procedural error” in that Ward’s employer failed to provide him with
an evidence of good health form when he applied for coverage. In addition, he
claims that the Court failed to consider Aetna’s conflict of interest. 1 As this Court
previously noted, Aetna’s decision was not procedurally unreasonable because it
merely applied the undisputed facts to the clear plan language. In addition, it is not
Contrary to Ward’s assertions, the Court’s discussion of Aetna’s conflict of interest
appears on pages six through seven of the Court’s [28] Memorandum Opinion and
Order.
-3-
1
necessary to discuss procedural unreasonableness and the effect of a conflict of
interest where the insurer’s plan interpretation was legally correct. See Stone v.
UNOCAL Termination Allowance Plan, 570 F.3d 252, 257 (5th Cir. 2009). As a
result, Ward’s motion for new trial must be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the [30] Motion
for New Trial filed by the plaintiff, Jason Ward, is DENIED.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 11th day of March, 2019.
s/
Louis Guirola, Jr.
LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-
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?