IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-41398
Summary Calendar
FLOYD HACKEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:96cv1042
--------------------
September 22, 1999
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The plaintiff-appellant appeals the district court’s denial
of his claim for group health benefits continuation coverage
under the amendments made to ERISA by the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (“COBRA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1166-
1168. The benefits in dispute were provided through a group
health benefits plan (“plan”) by his wife’s employer, the Kelly
Springfield Tire Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of defendant-
appellant Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. Hackey’s suit arose in
the wake of his divorce from his wife Rachel Hackey.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 98-41398
-2-
The plan required covered individuals to notify the plan
administrator of a qualifying event, such as divorce, within 60
days in order to be eligible for continuation coverage. Hackey
asserts that Goodyear failed to provide him with adequate notice
of the plan’s requirements and as such he should have been
permitted to elect continuation coverage upon being informed of
his failure to comply with these requirements. At a bench trial
the district court heard testimony from Rachel Hackey that she
had in fact delivered the Summary Plan Description book (“book”)
to the plaintiff-appellant. This book details the plan’s
continuation coverage requirements. Rachel Hackey further
testified that Hackey had read the book and was aware the he was
entitled to elect continuation coverage in the event of divorce.
Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we
hold that the district court did not clearly err in concluding
that Hackey had actual notice of the plan’s requirements that he
elect continuation coverage within six months of the qualifying
event. Because Hackey had actual notice of the plan’s
requirements, his failure to comply with those requirements
renders him ineligible for continuation benefits. Accordingly,
the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.