Withrow v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shield, Inc. Salary Protection Plan

Good Law
617 F. App'x 687
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 17, 201513-55812California890 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Valerie Withrow appeals the district court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, following a bench trial, in favor of Bache Halsey Stuart Shield, Inc. Salary Protection Plan (LTD) in Withrow’s ERISA action. Withrow alleges that she is entitled to increased monthly disability payments arising from an alleged miscalculation and misapplication of the terms of the group disability insurance contract (the Plan) issued by Reliance Insurance Company (“Reliance”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1. We do not find the plain language of the Plan to be ambiguous. The Plan provides that benefits would be based on “monthly earnings.” 2 ER 103. Although the Plan does not define “monthly earnings,” it ' defines “Salary” as “the monthly salary” plus “the average commissions during the preceding 24 month period, or from the date of employment, if employed less than 24 months.” 2 ER 105. The clear meaning of the term “salary” is that the “preceding 24 month period” applies to that time period immediately preceding an employee’s disability; the only basis for applying a period less than 24 months is if the employee was not employed for the full…

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.