Lavino

Lavino v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Good Law
779 F. Supp. 2d 1095·2011 WL 198452·2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5893
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJanuary 20, 2011CV 10-3623 SVW (FMOx)California7,930 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wilson, J.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Kelly Lavino filed this suit seeking ERISA-governed long-term disability benefits from Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) under her Malcolm Pirnie Welfare Benefit Plan (“the Plan”). On January 13, 2010, this Court issued a Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in a related matter, Lavino v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, CV 08-2910 SVW (FMCx), 2010 WL 234817 (C.D.Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (hereinafter, “Lavino I”), and issued judgement thereon on January 19, 2010 (collectively, “the January Order”). The January Order found that MetLife had abused its discretion in prematurely terminating Lavino’s benefits under the policy’s “own occupation” standard of disability. The Court ordered MetLife to review Lavino’s eligibility for continuing benefits under the policy’s “any occupation” standard. The Court also ordered MetLife to assess whether the proper benefit percentage to which Lavino is due is 60% or 70% of her former earnings. The parties have since agreed that 70% is the appropriate percentage, although it is unclear whether MetLife has actually transmitted the 10% balance to Plaintiff.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.