This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Insurance
ERISA
Long Term Disability Insurance

Terrance Gill v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America

Published: Dec. 24, 2020 | Result Date: Nov. 23, 2020 | Filing Date: Jul. 16, 2019 |

Case number: 19-cv-04066-EMC Bench Decision –  Defense

Judge

Edward M. Chen

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

John R. Unruh
(Unruh Law, P.C.)


Defendant

Nicole Y. Blohm
(Meserve, Mumper & Hughes LLP)

Charles K. Chineduh
(Meserve, Mumper & Hughes LLP)


Facts

Plaintiff Terrance Gill, a former project manager at Union Bank, filed suit against Defendant First Unum Life Insurance Company (erroneously sued as Unum Life Insurance Company of America) to recover further long-term disability (LTD) insurance benefits under a policy governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, after First Unum discontinued Plaintiff's LTD benefits after twenty-four months based on the policy's mental illness limitation.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended Defendant wrongfully denied him distribution of continued disability benefits because the policy's mental illness limitation was inapplicable to him as his disability was caused by mild cognitive impairment, which is a physical, rather than a mental non-psychiatric condition.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied Plaintiff's contentions and argued that Plaintiff's disability was due to mental illness and that the policy limited LTD benefits for such disabilities due to mental illness to 24 months, which Plaintiff had already received. Therefore, Plaintiff was not entitled to further benefits under the clear and express terms of the policy.

Result

Following the parties' cross-motions for judgment and hearing, the court ruled in favor of Defendant First Unum finding that Plaintiff did not meet his burden of establishing entitlement to further benefits as the preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that Plaintiff's cognitive impairments were caused by his mental illness -- such that he was not entitled to further benefits under the policy beyond the 24-months he had already received.


#136238

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390