Helm

Helm v. Sun Life Assurance of Canada, Inc.

Good Law
34 F. App'x 328
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 24, 2002No. 00-35876; D.C. No. CV-00-00629-BJRCalifornia2,344 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Andrea Helm (“Helm”) appeals from the order granting the motion for summary judgment filed by Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, Inc. (“Sun Life”) in her action to recover benefits under a group long-term disability policy issued by Sun Life to Helm’s employer, Dexter & Chaney (“Dexter”).

She contends that the district court erred in denying her motion for a continuance pursuant to Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in reviewing Sun Life’s decision to deny benefits under the abuse of discretion standard because Sun Life did not unambiguously retain the discretion to grant or deny benefits. She also asserts that the district court erred in concluding that Sun Life’s denial of benefits was based on competent evidence. We affirm because we conclude that Helm failed to carry her burden for relief under Rule 56(f). We also hold that Sun Life unambiguously retained the discretion to grant or deny benefits by providing in the policy that the proof submitted by an employee of entitlement to benefits “must be satisfactory to us,” and relied on competent evidence in rejecting Helm’s claim. We also reject Helm’s contention that reversal is warranted…

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.