Opinion ID: 182135
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Group Long Term Disability Policy

Text: The district court correctly determined that Fier was ineligible for benefits under the LTD policy from 1993 to 1997, and from 1998 onward. We interpret terms in ERISA insurance policies in an ordinary and popular sense as would a [person] of average intelligence and experience. Evans v. Safeco Life Ins. Co., 916 F.2d 1437, 1441 (9th Cir.1990) (internal quotations omitted). We will not artificially create ambiguity where none exists. Id. (internal quotations omitted). The LTD policy's paragraph titled Termination of Disability Benefits states that [d]isability benefits will cease on the earliest of: ... the date the insured's current earnings exceed 80% of his pre-disability earnings. Fier, 2009 WL 3644187, at . This provision unambiguously serves to terminate disability benefits at the time an insured person earns greater than eighty percent of his pre-disability earnings. [2] Fier was an insured person and received disability benefits under the LTD policy from 1997 until 2004. He does not challenge the district court's finding that he earned greater than eighty percent of his pre-disability earnings from 1993 to 1997, and from 1998 onward. Under the plain terms of the LTD policy, Fier is ineligible for continuing benefits, and he is ineligible for backpay of benefits during the specified years. The district court was also correct in finding that Fier's coverage under the LTD policy terminated when he left the Boyd Group in 1998. The LTD policy provides that [a]n employee will cease to be insured on the earliest of the following dates:. ... 5. the date employment terminates. Id. at . Fier concedes that he left the Boyd Group, causing the LTD policy to possibly terminate. Appellant's Opening Br. at 43. He maintains he is nevertheless eligible for benefits under a separate provision of the policy stating that [t]ermination of this policy under any conditions will not prejudice any payable claim which occurs while the policy is in force. Id. Fier's argument is essentially an extension of his contention that Unum's obligation to pay benefits did not cease under the Termination of Disability Benefits paragraph. See supra. But because Fier became ineligible for disability benefits in 1998, he does not have any payable claim under which to demand additional benefits.