2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-8-2004 

# D eGro ot v . M etro Li fe Ins C o P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-1827

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" D eGr oot v

. M e tr o L i fe In s C o " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 852. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/852* Honorable John R. Gibson, Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the

Eighth Circuit, sitting by desig nation. NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

___________ No . 03-1827

___________ ELIZ AB ETH DE GR OO T, (AT TO RN EY IN FA CT FO R R OG ER DE GR OO T),

Ap pellan t,

v. METR OPOLITAN L IFE INSURANCE C OMPA NY and LUCEN T TECHN OLOG IES, INC.

________________________ ON APPE AL FROM THE UNIT ED STA TES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE

EA STE RN DIST RIC T O F PE NN SY LV AN IA Distri ct Court Judge: The Hon. James KnollGardner

(No. 02-CV-03577)

___________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit L. A.R. 34.1( a)

March 22, 2004 BE FO RE : FU EN TE S, S M ITH and GI BS ON , Circu it Judges . *

(Opinion Fi led: Apri l 8, 2004)

________________________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

________________________-2-

FU EN TE S, Circuit

Judge : Appellant

Roger DeGroot (“DeGroot”) ( whose power of att orneyis i n the hands of Appellant

Elizab eth D eG root) wo rked for W estern Elec tric from 196 5 un til after it s purchase by AT& T. During his employment, DeGroot bought group li fe insur ance (“the policy ”) from Appellee Metropolitan Life Ins urance (“ Metlife”) through his employ ers t otali ng $260,000, with th e premi ums autom atically dedu cted f rom each payche ck. A fter D eG root re tired w ith
a pension i n 1989, AT&T spun A ppe lle e Lu ce ntTec hno lo gi es (“ Luc en t” ) o ff in to it s o wn co m pa ny, and Lucent assumed responsibili ty for DeGroot’s retirement benefits. In Ju l y 1999, DeGroot turned65 a nd Lu cen t s to ppe d se ndi ng p re miu ms to Metli fe, caus ing Metli fe to terminate DeGroot’s coverage. The policy provisi ons requi red DeGroot to elect to conv ert his gr ou p p ol icy i nt o a pe rso na l p ol icy within 3 1 days after his 65 th birt

hday, but DeGroot made no such election in August 1999, or anytime in 1999 at all. DeG root filed suit against Lucent an d Me tli fe, claim ing tha t he did not rec eive th e requ ired statu tory notice of h is window to ele ct fora personalpolicy . The District Court granted summary j udgment for Appellees on the grounds that DeGroot was not denied suffici ent noti ce of his time-sens iti ve rights to elec t perso nal co verag e. Spe cifically, the D istrict Co urt ruled th at Appell ees provideduncontrover

ted evi den ce that DeGroot received s uffici ent noti ce of the el ecti on procedures in regular maili ngs. The Distric t Cou rt furthe r ruled that ev en if D eG root d id not recei ve any notice, his ri ght to el ect was st atutorilycut off at the end of October

1999, 601 The parties disagree over w hether Delaware or Pennsy lvania law applies, but as all parties and the District Cou

rt obser ved, the t wo states ’ statute s are al

most exactl

y id entical. -3- da ys a fte r h is e lec tio n r ig ht ex pi re d i n t he po lic y. 1 DeGroot argues on appe al that the evide nce th at he re ceive d no tice sho uld have been excludedas it

came from a deposit

ion to which he obj ected, and that it did not even establ ish notice . Sp ecif ically, the District Court credi ted deposition test imony from Edw in Adams,
an employe e of

Lucent’s mai ling s erviceUM S, st ating t hat DeGroot was on Lucent’ s maili ng lis ts and t

hatthe proper

noticemateri als were mai led to DeGroot. DeGroot object s that he
was not ab le to defend the depos iti on, and thatDeGroot’s rec eipt of proper notice shoul d not have been inferre d fro m A dam s’s testim ony that L ucen t mailed certain mate rials to D eG root. DeG root’s argument i s unavail ing, however, because the questi on of whe ther D eGroot recei ved proper notice i s moot: as the Dist rict Court recogni zed, the applicable statute b ars recovery for DeGroot because hedid not el ec t for cove r age withi n 60 days after the expirat ion of his election p eriod. 40 Pa . Cons. Stat. A nn. § 532 .7 (“ in no eventsha ll s uch additi onal [election] period exte nd beyond s ixty days next after the e xpiration dateof the period pro vided in suc h policy”); Del. Co de A nn. tit. 18, § 3125 (sam e). DeGroot cites to a string of case s in an attemp t to escape the strictures of the statutory bar, but onl y one of th ose cas es, Ha rris v . St. C hrist oph er’s H osp . for Childr en , 291 Pa. Super. 451 (19 81) , actu ally inte rpre ts the statu te at is sue . The Ha rris c ourt hel d that t he statutory bar d id no t apply in that c ase becausethe ins ured died wit hin the 60- day window for election, rendering t

he time l imit

inequitable. 291 Pa. Super. at 456-57. The Ha rris court-4-

was clear, h ow ever, in stating th at if the ins ured had survived the60-daywindow (as was the
ca se with De Gro ot), the b ar w ould have applie d to p reclud e the in surer’s liabil ityeve n tho ugh the in sure r ha d ne ver rece ived not ice. Id. at457 , n. 3. I n sh ort, Ha rris does not l ift the statutory ba r in DeGroot’s case , and the Dist rict Court therefore appropriate lydismis sed his claim . Acc ordin gly, we a ffirm the D istrict Co urt’s jud gm ent.