Cyr

Cyr v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance

Good Law
448 F. App'x 749·642 F.3d 1202
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 26, 201107-56869, 08-55234California713 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment and attorneys’ fees to Laura Cyr in her action for retroactive benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. An en banc panel of this court held that Reliance was a proper defendant under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(1)(B). Cyr v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 642 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc). The case was transferred back to this panel for disposition of the remaining issues. We affirm.

We review de novo whether Cyr was entitled to retroactive disability benefits under the terms of the benefit plan. See Blankenship v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 486 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir.2007). Under the plan, benefits were payable based on “covered monthly earnings,” which were defined as “salary re ceived from [the employer] on the day just before the date of Total Disability” (emphasis added). The plan also required that the insured be “actively at work on the date of the change.”

The term “received” is not defined in the plan, but the term can reasonably be construed to encompass a salary retroactively acquired on a particular date. See Blankenship, 486 F.3d…

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.