Opinion ID: 2814863
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Principles of Construction

Text: In construing the language of an ERISA-governed policy, courts apply federal common law. Padfield v. AIG Life Ins. Co., 290 F.3d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002). Under that law, policy terms are interpreted in the “ordinary and popular sense as would a person of average intelligence and experience.” Id. (quoting Babikian v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 63 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 1995)). In developing federal common law to govern ERISA claims, courts may “borrow from state law where appropriate, and [be] guided by the policies expressed in ERISA and other federal labor laws.” Id. (quoting Babikian, 63 F.3d at 840) (alteration in original). The policy provision at issue, Endorsement E-5, articulates three required elements of a covered “bodily injury”: (1) it directly resulted from an “accident” that was both (2) “unintended [and] unanticipated,” and (3) “external to the body.” Hence, our task is to determine whether the average person, considering these prerequisites as they are articulated in the policy, would conclude that plaintiffs are entitled to accidental death benefits. See Dupree v. Holman Prof’l Counseling Ctrs., 572 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating that the principles applicable to review of an ERISA policy “direct us to look to the agreement’s language in context and construe each provision in a manner consistent with the whole such that none is rendered nugatory”).