Allan Hamilton v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 11 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALLAN J. HAMILTON, M.D., No. 09-16009 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:06-cv-00417-DCB v. MEMORANDUM * HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 15, 2010 San Francisco, California Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, ARCHER ** and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Even if we were to review the Plan Administrator’s interpretation of “Total Disability” and “Totally Disabled” de novo, plaintiff would not be entitled to this * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation. page 2 kind of benefit. The Plan’s language is unambiguous, and plaintiff does not satisfy its requirement that he be “earning less than 20% of [his] Pre-disability Earnings.” [ER 260–61] Because the definition of these terms is also conspicuous and unambiguous, plaintiff cannot claim that any expectations he had to the contrary were reasonable. See Peterson v. Am. Life & Health Ins. Co., 48 F.3d 404, 411–12 (9th Cir. 1995). In light of these considerations, we have no need to reach plaintiff’s other assertions of error, which are unavailing in any event. The district court’s rulings on discovery and the administrative record were not abuses of discretion. AFFIRMED.