LaFontaine

MEMORANDUM ***

Blayne Kim LaFontaine (“LaFontaine”) appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Massachusetts Casualty Insurance Co. (“MCIC”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 (a)(1) and 1441(a), (b), and we affirm in part, and reverse in part.

LaFontaine first argues that the district court erred in finding that he raised no genuine issues of material fact necessitating a trial with respect to his breach of contract claim. We agree.

The district court held that LaFontaine did not provide sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of fact as to whether he was “totally disabled” as defined in the subject insurance policy, and whether *25 he met the income-related qualifications for “residual disability.”

The district court construed the terms of the total disability provision to mean that “[w]hile there may be some job duties that LaFontaine cannot perform daily, there is no evidence that LaFontaine cannot perform all of the substantial and material duties of his occupation.... ” That interpretation, however, conflicts with the plain meaning of the policy terms. By the provision’s plain terms, 2 total disability exists when the…