Opinion ID: 532563
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Boren's claims against N.L.

Text: 8 Boren's arguments on appeal revolve around his interpretation of paragraph eight of the 1981 agreement. This paragraph reads as follows: 9 Mr. Boren ... will receive [benefits] from December, 1978 forward, through Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, for a period consistent with the terms of its policy in effect in December, 1978, unless there is a change in his present condition. 10 Boren argues that this paragraph entitles him to receipt of benefits indefinitely unless there is a change in his condition. Boren's interpretation, as the district court correctly concluded, ignores the Metropolitan policy/ERISA plan to which the agreement refers. The ERISA plan indicates that: Benefits are payable for 3 years if you cannot perform all the duties of your regular job.... Benefits will continue after that if you cannot work at any job. 2 11 Boren's assertion that coverage would continue until his condition changed rather than ceasing pursuant to the terms of the ERISA plan is not supported by the plain language of paragraph eight or the whole of the settlement agreement. In addition to paragraph eight, the agreement states that benefits would continue under such program consistent with all the normal policies and procedures of Metropolitan, Agreement, paragraph five, and that Boren would be subject to periodic examinations to confirm his continuing disability. Agreement, paragraph six. Based on the language of the 1981 Agreement, the district court did not err in concluding that N.L. fulfilled its responsibility under the settlement agreement. 12 Boren, however, sought to introduce parol evidence to support his assertion that the parties intended that the terms of the settlement agreement (that benefits continue until his condition as of September 1981 changed) control over the terms of the Metropolitan policy. The magistrate ruled that the parol evidence was inadmissible, and Boren did not appeal the magistrate's determination to the district court. Accordingly, we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to review the magistrate's ruling on the parol evidence issue. 13 Appeals from a magistrate's ruling must first be made to the district court. Colburn v. Bunge Towing, Inc., 883 F.2d 372 (5th Cir.1989); Trufant v. Autocon, 729 F.2d 308 (5th Cir.1984). Although Boren fails entirely to address the question of this Court's jurisdiction, this Court will examine the basis of its own jurisdiction if necessary. Because Boren did not appeal the magistrate's order, this Court does not have jurisdiction of the appeal from the magistrate's refusal to allow parol evidence. 14 N.L., as the district court noted, did what it agreed to do. There being no evidence in the record to indicate that the plain language of the settlement agreement should not control, we affirm the summary judgment in favor of N.L. and turn to Boren's claims against Metropolitan.