Mealey's (July 11, 2016, 9:16 AM EDT) -- NEW ORLEANS — A Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 6 affirmed summary judgment for an employer and an insurance company in a woman’s lawsuit seeking to recover benefits she claimed were due to her under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (Linda Singletary v. United Parcel Service Inc., et al., No. 15-30762, 5th Cir.; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12475).
(Opinion available. Document #54-160713-063Z.)
The panel affirmed a ruling by U.S. Judge Martin L.C. Feldman of the Eastern District of Louisiana in favor of United Parcel Service Inc. (UPS) and Prudential Insurance Company of America in the suit filed by Linda Singletary.
Singletary purchased life insurance for herself and her husband through UPS, her employer. Her husband, Timothy, was an active-duty soldier in the U.S. Army who was killed in a weekend motorcycle accident while off base and not on duty.
Benefits Denied
Singletary participated in the UPS Flexible Benefits Plan that provides group life insurance coverage to UPS employees. Prudential is the carrier of the plan. Under the plan, Singletary could purchase supplemental dependent life insurance for her “qualified dependants.” On Aug. 22, 2012, she bought $500,000 in dependent insurance for her husband. Under the plan, however, a “spouse [or] Domestic Partner . . . is not [a] Qualified Dependent while . . . on active duty in the armed forces of any country.”
After her husband was killed on Oct. 21, 2012, Singletary submitted a life insurance claim for benefits. Prudential reviewed the Army report of casualty, which indicated that Timothy Singletary was not on duty at the time of his death. Prudential contacted the Army to confirm that he had been an active-duty soldier. The Army confirmed, explaining that the “off duty” notation in the report only meant that Singletary was not on duty at the time of his accident. Prudential then denied the claim because the deceased was on active duty at the time of his death.
Singletary twice appealed to Prudential. First, she argued that the active-duty exclusion was not disclosed to her. Second, she argued that the exclusion is otherwise unenforceable because it is contrary to Louisiana law. Prudential denied both appeals, and Singletary then filed her present suit in federal court. Judge Feldman granted summary judgment to UPS and Prudential, holding that Prudential correctly denied the claim pursuant to the exclusion and that the exclusion was enforceable. Singletary appealed.
Correct Interpretation
“Here, Prudential correctly interpreted the exclusion as barring the claim,” Circuit Judge Leslie H. Southwick wrote for the Fifth Circuit panel. “The Plan indicates that a spouse is not a qualified dependent when the spouse is on active-duty in the armed forces of any country. Moreover, it was not an abuse of discretion for Prudential to interpret the exclusion to apply regardless of whether a spouse was on military duty at the time of an occurrence.
“The only evidence is that Specialist Singletary was an active-soldier, which is a continuous status during the period of duty enlistment.”
The panel said that Singletary’s claim that Prudential abused its discretion by enforcing an exclusion of which she was not on notice also fails.
“She claims that the only [plan] document she received was the Summary Plan Description [SPD],” Judge Southwick wrote. “Prudential admitted in the administrative proceedings below that the SPD did not mention the exclusion.
“Even so, under ERISA, the claim Mrs. Singletary has brought requires us simply to interpret the Plan. Because the Plan does not allow benefits for a spouse who was on active military duty, the claim fails.”
Circuit Judges Carol Dineen King and Catharina Haynes concurred.
Counsel
Singletary is represented by Joseph Piacun and Reid Scott Uzee of Gennusa, Piacun & Ruli in Metairie, La. UPS is represented by John Timothy McDonald and Sedric D. Bailey of Thompson Hine in Atlanta. Prudential is represented by Ian Hugh Morrison of Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago and Patricia S. LeBlanc of LeBlanc Fantaci Villio in Metairie.
(Additional documents available: Appellant’s brief. Document #54-160713-064B. Appellees’ brief. Document #54-160713-065B.)...