Huntsinger

MEMORANDUM **

Eva Huntsinger appeals the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Unum Provident Corporation and The Shaw Group, Inc. on her complaint seeking damages for alleged violations of ERISA. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 408 F.3d 596, 602 (9th Cir.2005). The district court’s *520 choice and application of the appropriate standard of review for Mrs. Huntsinger’s ERISA claims is also reviewed de novo. Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 962 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc). We affirm.

Mrs. Huntsinger’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty under 29 U.S.C. § 1109 , improper denial of benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(1)(B), and wrongful interference with benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1140 require proof that the alleged ERISA violation caused harm to the beneficiary. See Lockheed Corp. v. Spink, 517 U.S. 882, 888-89 , 116 S.Ct. 1783 , 135 L.Ed.2d 153 (1996); Gavalik v. Cont’l Can Co., 812 F.2d 834 , 852 (3d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 979 , 108 S.Ct. 495 , 98 L.Ed.2d 492 (1987). However, according to the terms of the life insurance policy…