Deegan

Appellant and cross-appellee Thomas S. Deegan (“appellant”) appeals from the decision of the District Court for the District of ■Arizona which concluded that appellant was not entitled to disability benefits for his partial disability under the terms of his insurance policy after he began 'a second job.

Appellee and cross-appellant Continental Casualty Company (“appellee”) cross-appeal from the initial decision of the district court which concluded that appellant was totally disabled under the terms of the policy following his accident.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and hold that, pursuant to principles of contract construction, appellant was • disabled only until he began earning more than his pre-disability salary. ■ Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court in its entirety.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Insurance Policy.

Appellee issued appellant the insurance policy prior to the accident and it became effective on January 1, 1989. The policy provided disability benefits to CCL Industries, Inc. (“CCL”) employees, including appellant. The policy defines “Total Disability” as follows:

The policy defines “Partial Disability” as…