Date: 07-25-2022

Case Style:

Renee Ministeri v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company

Case Number: 21-1651

Judge: Selya

Court: United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Suffolk County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Defendant's Attorney: Colleen C. Cook and Deborah H. Dodge

Description: 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.

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: