insurance company involved actually paid the claim so there's no dispute about whether the claim should be paid or not which has implications for this the deference that is due to the decision maker in this case plenty of sun was up just been in a planter his employer land o'lakes he had a life and accidental death insurance he did not submit a beneficiary designation or at least there is nothing on file no one could find one despite numerous effort nder the the plan in asked her to swear to some certain facts the that were in that affidavit and she did so interestingly during a telephone call in the claims process you know explained to the pla relying on the information provided by plaintiff further in its investigation you know eventually paid the lie and if it's in a play the accidental death benefits to mr jones as the domestic partner under the plan it was about that if the domestic partner were not proper beneficiary it would be the children and not plaintiff or the state who would be the appropriate beneficiary they would kind of be the next one this this case is mostly to me at least from clear case law and there's large agreement amongst all the appellate courts that the abuse of discretion standard applies further the statute in the supreme court has said that the language of the plan is of primary importance and rests benefits and made a reasonable interpretation of that language i don't think they're there well let me back up there are two sort of contractual provisions that issue in this case separate i you know it's only speculation that clearly that language should have been part someplace else in the plan but it wasn't nevertheless as the administrator of the plan unum is confronted with that language that s the policy that explained who is entitle to benefits should the designated beneficiary not be available yes there is it's in an earlier part of the plan and it goes through and says if you do not name a beneficiary e which we interpret to say includes domestic partner someone reading the policy at this point i would be completely unaware of the provision later that equates to mr partners with spouses if they read the policy front to back in stop there or they would not be aware that you know you're on but i think that you have to look at all the language of the plan i think the supreme court case law is very clear if the language of the plan controls the language of the plan whatever then if it's to determine who's the recipient of death well i think that you still have i agree that someone reading that would look at that and say yes spouse but if you look at the entire plan it expands the definition of plan there's also a glossary section at the end that modifies numerous words in that plan and someone kid you know read through and then what back to the glossary later not modifies certain words there are the meanings of certain words in that plan i don't think that it's that it's defeats the purpose of a risk to look at all the words of the plan and there certainly are simply no other explanation of that language spouse wherever he used includes domestic partner it would not take that into account and i'd also like to point out that the spouse where ever  used language has meaning beyond just the beneficiary designation in the policy there are other provisions of that policy that only baek in terms of a spouse and they include the portability section so  portability section that allows a dependent or the participant to port the insurance after they're no longer employed with the company there's also a section on the amount of benefits that are available that only speaks in terms of spouse and if you read the section of the plan talking how domestic partners can clearly be insured under the plan is dependence that's laid out specifically to say that they can be insured but at the same time they can't port that insurance and it's silent about the mount of coverage they can get is just doesn't make sense the only way to read that wind which in context and to make be reasonable in the context of the language of the point and in your honor brought up the inly factors and it's of course the family factors it's important to remember are not a burden of proof or burr burden shifting s not like mcdonnell douglas framework that she deal with so often in employment discrimination cases this is not a case where unum has to satisfy these factors in order to win and those are simply factors that she take into account and who does the plan contemplate to designate the domestic partner who does the plan contemplate to designate a domestic partner well it depends on the situation in the section of the plan that deals with dependant becoming insured under the plan it talks about their needs to submit the domestic partner affidavit to start off that insurance  so i guess it's it's unclear if that comes from the employee or if it comes from the domestic partner in that context i would assume it would come from the practice of them because they're seeking to have them covered under their plane with for purposes of the designation of  sends it out to the identify domestic partner and ask them to swear to certain facts which is what happened here additionally you but there was no domestic partner that was identified at that point was yes ms jones was a d blanchard the questions go directly to what the issue is in this case and and as judge oral points out that was just a reasonable decision and i think for all the reasons that judge haste numer her pinion the answer to that is no and they talk about this facility of payment affidavit well that's what my client ms ingle originally it was given to her it was and a half a day but saying that yes but when you go to and this really goes down to the two provisions that have been discussed which is spouse wherever you see that what what judge hayes refers to as the spouse will enlarge my language and then there's the domestic partner designation and the the answer to the question that was asked directly answered as the person who designates the partner is  participants and if we look at a risk and the reasonable us test i think don't you have to look at the purpose of the risk of plan itself and under twenty n him that he would want his kids to have the money he did not designate a a domestic partner and the language comes in two places it mesquite partner designation language are exactly the same now if they're to apply to the whole policy why aren't they as judge chase points out it looking at the whole plan why are what you're saying as well gee here's two hundred thirty three thousand dollars would you sign that were you a domestic partner and if you sign this affidavit we're going to give you two hundred thirty three thousand dollars they let the domestic partner decide whether she should get the money not carrying now he didn't and the testimony again and spewed facts were from both jacqueline zones and the grandmother which think is to look take versus businessman assurance case which is where there's a failure to follow the clear language of the policy and i may be perforation here that is strong evidence of arbitrary a is abuse of discretion this court review this judge hayes's opinion the novo the standard that she was bound by and that and the standard of review of the decision is was there an abuse of discretion expected the motion the summary judgments as entered by judge a should be affirmed by this court and if you don't have any other questions i've said all i can thank you very union of the authority to interpret and define undefined terms that is of paramount importance here so judge hayes actually held that against him and said well you should have included it in the gloss you wanted it it's online but the system is supposed to work the defines undefined terms and the the plaintiffs talked about the expectations of the insured and with with the respect to him the expectations of the insured don't don't come into play in this case because of the way arista works which is that you're supposed to look to whether he had a beneficiary designation on file or not he did not and whether what the plan language  circumstances you mean you have to keep in mind that in this case they had talked to ms eagle on the phone and she had said she was happy with that outcome and also i think you there is language in the plan that says that you know can rely on these affidavits and facts that are presented to them you have to keep in mind that this is not a situation where we're looking for a preponderance of the evidence standard this is an administrative scheme that was set up primarily to make this the system efficient and prompt the department of labor is often on insurers about you need to get these life insurance claims paid quickly you need to handle this this investigation quickly and efficiently do your job yes but pay benefits when they and that's exactly what unum did here was that it did an investigation it looked into this it promptly paid benefits and the entire point of deference is to give you know the authority to make this call which it did and it was