Harris

MEMORANDUM **

William A. Harris appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his complaint alleging wrongful denial of his disability claim. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm, though for a different reason than that given by the district court. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. 1 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, we must determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. 2 We may affirm on any ground supported by the record.

To the extent UNUM’s plan is ambiguous, it must be interpreted against the insurer. 4 Proof of claim under UNUM’s policy requires a showing of the date of onset of the disability, the cause and seriousness of the disability, and the regular attendance of a physician for the disability. Nothing in the policy clearly requires, as part of the initial proof of claim, proof of regular attendance of a physician during the entire elimination period. Harris’s submissions were sufficient to establish initial proof of claim. Accordingly, they triggered UNUM’s…