Hemenway

Hemenway v. Unum Life Insurance

Good Law
89 F. App'x 630
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 1, 2004No. 02-56980; D.C. No. CV-01-00289-TJW/AJBCalifornia562 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff Judith Hemenway appeals the district court’s calculation of her disability benefits in its order granting in part and denying in part Hemenway’s and defendant Unum Life Insurance Co.’s (“Unum”) cross-motions for summary judgment. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. See Wetzel v. Lou Ehlers Cadillac Group Long Term Disability Ins. Program, 222 F.3d 643, 646 (9th Cir.2000). We also review de novo the district court’s interpretation of an ERISA insurance policy’s language. See Cisneros v. Unum Life Ins. Co., 134 F.3d 939 , 942 (9th Cir.1998). Because we conclude that both of Hemenway’s bonuses should have been factored in their entirety into her basic monthly earnings (“BME”) calculation, we reverse.

Hemenway’s long term disability plan (the “Plan”) unambiguously defines the BME as “the monthly rate of pre-tax compensation from the employer, regardless of when received, in effect just prior to the date disability begins,” including any “pre-tax compensation from bonuses.” (Emphasis added). The plain meaning of this definition is that the BME includes the full proportion of any bonuses attributable to the months worked prior to…

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.