UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1253
NANCY WATSON, beneficiary on a life insurance
policy issued to Jamie Watson,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenwood. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CA-01-4704-8-24)
Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: March 22, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carson M. Henderson, THE GARRETT LAW FIRM, PC, Greenville, South
Carolina; C. Rauch Wise, LAW OFFICE OF C. RAUCH WISE, Greenwood,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Theodore D. Willard, Jr.,
MONTGOMERY, PATTERSON, POTTS & WILLARD, L.L.P., Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Nancy Watson appeals from the district court’s order
entering judgment in favor of Unum Life Insurance Co. (“Unum”) in
her action seeking to recover the proceeds of an accidental death
and dismemberment plan pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B)
(2000). We affirm.
On June 9, 2000, Jamie Watson died as the result of
injuries sustained in a single-car collision in Ware Shoals, South
Carolina. At the time of his death, Jamie was an employee of
Lowe’s Companies, which established an employee accidental death
and dismemberment plan with Unum. Nancy Watson--Jamie’s
grandmother--was designated as sole beneficiary.
The traffic report stated that the driver of Jamie’s
vehicle was “driving at a high rate of speed lost control of the
vehicle and ran off right side of the roadway striking a ditch
which caused the vehicle to overturn and strike two trees.” The
toxicology report disclosed that, at the time of the accident,
Jamie was driving with a blood alcohol level of .175%.
Unum denied Watson’s claim for benefits on the grounds
that Jamie “did not sustain an ‘Injury’ that resulted in a covered
loss as defined in the Policy,” i.e., Jamie “did not sustain an
accidental bodily injury that resulted directly and independently
of all other causes.” J.A. 151. Unum concluded, instead, that
Jamie's “action of driving while under the influence of alcohol at
- 2 -
a blood alcohol level of .175% was deemed to have caused,
contributed to or resulted in his motor vehicle accident.” Watson
then filed this action in district court alleging that she was
denied benefits under the policy in contravention of ERISA.
After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in
favor of Unum, finding that Unum did not abuse its discretion in
deciding that Jamie’s death was not the result of an “injury” as
defined in the policy. We have reviewed the record on appeal,
including the district court’s opinion and the parties’ briefs, and
have found no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -