N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KATHEE A. C OLM AN,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. AM E R IC AN INTER

N ATIONAL GR OUP, INC ., Group B e ne fit Pla n; HAR TFORD LIFE AND AC C IDENT INSUR ANC E C OM PANY, De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-15903 D.C . No. 3:14-c v-01584-VC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia V inc e G. C hha

b ria , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 16, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : C ANB Y and M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd R UFE, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED
J UN 12 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble C ynthia

M . R ufe , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of Pe nnsy lva n ia , sitting by

de signa tion.Kathe e C olm an a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra n t of judgm e nt in fa

vor of Am e ric an Inte rnationa l Group, Inc ., Group B e ne fit Pla n a nd Ha rtford Life and Ac c ide nt Insura

nc e C om pa ny , in he r a c t ion unde r the Em ploy e e R e tire m e nt Inc o m e Se c urity

Ac t of 1974 (“ ER ISA” ). W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt prope rly c onc lude d tha

t a n a buse of disc re tion sta

nda rd
a pplie s to Ha

rtford’ s de nia l of be ne fits. B e c a use the pla

n una m biguously provide s disc re tion to the

a dm inistra

tor, the sta

nda rd of re v i e w shifts “ from

the de fa ult of de novo to them ore le nie nt a buse of disc re t ion.” Abatie v . Alta He a lth & LifeIns. C o ., 458 F.3d 955, 963 (9th C ir. 2006) (e n ba nc ). C olm an c onte nds tha t the distric t
c ourt e rre d in a

pply ing this sta

nda rd be c a u se Hartford did not produc e a ll of the
re le va nt pla n doc um e nts, a

nd be c a use any disc re tion in the

pla n wa s voide d by
se c t ion 10110.6 of the

C a lifornia

Insura nc e C ode
. She fa ile d, howe ve r, to ra ise
e ithe r of the s e argum e nts be fore the distric t c ourt, a nd we de c l ine to c o nside r the m for the first tim e on a

ppe a l. Se eSmith v . Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir. 1999). The distric t c ourt a

p propria te ly te m pe re d the le ve l of disc re tion a fforde d to Hartford to a c c ount for se ve ra l m inor proc e dura l e rrors but thosee rrors did not justify de novo re vie w. Se e Abatie , 458 F.3d a t 972. The re c ord de m onstra te s a
2c ontinuing good fa ith e xc ha nge of inform a tion be twe e n Ha rtford a nd C olm an in whic h Ha rtford re pe ate dly

a dvise d C olm an tha

t she ne e de d to providee vide nc e that he r phy sic a l a ilm e nts pre ve nte d he r from working in a

ny oc c upation. The
m a te ria l s tha

t C olm an subm itte d in support of her a dm i nistra tive a ppe a l de m onstra

te d tha t she unde rstood thene e d to show tha t she wa s phy sic a lly disa ble d. C olm an a rgue s tha t the pla n’ s de finition of m e n ta l illne ss for purpose s of the 24-m onth c ove ra ge lim ita tion wa s a

m biguous, a

nd tha t the princ iple of c ontra profe re nte m re quire s a

ny am biguity to be c onstrue d in fa

vor of c ove ra ge . The pla n , howe ve r, e xpre s sly

gran te d Ha

rtford the disc re t ion to c onstrue any
am biguitie s. In tha

t c a se , the doc trine of c ontra profere nte m d oe s not a pply , a nd the o nly que s tion is whe the r Hartford’ s inte rpre t a tion is re a sona ble
. Day v . AT & T Disability Inc ome Plan , 698 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th C ir. 2012). Ha rtford’ s de te rm i nation tha

t the lim ita

tion a pplie d to c la im s in whic h m e nta l illne ss is a

“ but-for c a

use ” of the disa

bility wa s re a sona

b le . Ha rtford’ s c onc lusion tha

t C olm an ha d

e xha uste d he r 24 m onths of m e nta l illne ss disa bility c ove ra g e a s of August 2013. Hartford did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny i ng long-te rm be ne fits. The distric t c o urt prope rly

we ighe d the a

ppropria te c a se -spe c i fic fa c tors, inc luding
3Hartford’ s c onflic t o f inte re s t, in its a buse of disc re tion a

na ly sis. Se e Montour v
. Hartford Life

& Ac c ide nt Ins. C

o ., 588 F.3d 623, 630 (9th C i r. 2009). Ha rtford’ s de te rm i nation tha

t C olm a n ha d not de m onstra

te d tha t she wa s disa

ble d a s a re sult of he r phy sic a l a ilm e n ts wa s ove rwhe lm ingly supporte d by

the m e dic a l e vide nc e . The distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt is AFFIRM E D.

4