Renee Ministeri v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company

Boston, Massachusetts insurance law lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant on a breach of insurance contract theory.



It is common ground that

ambiguities in an insurance policy — particularly ambiguities in

an insurance policy issued as part of an employee benefit plan

and, thus, within the protective carapace of the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-

1461 — must ordinarily be construed against the issuing insurer.

The case at hand is a poster child for this familiar proposition.



The backdrop is easily painted. In these consolidated

appeals, we are tasked — among other things — with deciding whether

an employee lost life insurance coverage under his employer's group

policy after he developed a brain tumor that disrupted his usual

work. The insurance company denied coverage on the ground that

the employee had lost coverage before his death. We conclude that

the policy language invoked by the insurance company is less than

clear, bringing into play the rule that ambiguous terms in an

insurance policy should be read, within reason, in favor of

coverage. Applying that rule, we hold that the employee was

covered at the time of his demise.



The court below granted a motion for summary judgment

filed by the employee's widow as to both the basic life insurance

amount of $624,000 and the supplemental life insurance amount of

$468,000. See Ministeri v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 523

F. Supp. 3d 157, 181 (D. Mass. 2021). The court also awarded her

attorneys' fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. The insurer has

appealed, and the widow has cross-appealed to challenge the rate

set by the district court for prejudgment interest. Discerning

neither any reversible error nor any abuse of discretion, we reject

both appeals and leave the parties where we found them.

Affirmed