Kennedy v. Hartford Insurance Co.

1 Citing case

  1. Schultz v. Aviall, Inc. Long Term Disability Plan

    670 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2012)   Cited 41 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the respective plans allowed for deductible sources of income including "[t]he amount that you, your spouse and children receive or are entitled to receive as loss of time disability payments because of your disability under . . . the United States Social Security Act" and amounts "payable to you or your spouse or children based on your work and earnings" including "benefits payable under or by reason of . . . [t]he United States Social Security Act as amended from time to time [but not] benefits paid to your former spouse or to your child living with such spouse"

    identical policy language. See Mayhew v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 2011 WL 5024648, at *5–7 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 21, 2011) (denying insured's motion to dismiss plan's counterclaim because dependent Social Security disability benefits could be offset against insured's long-term disability benefits pursuant to policy language permitting offset of “loss of income” benefits paid to insured or insured's family under Social Security Act); Fortune v. Group Long Term Disability Plan for Employees of Keyspan Corp., 588 F.Supp.2d 339, 341–42 (E.D.N.Y.2008) (denying insured's motion to amend complaint as futile because plan's language offsetting “loss of income” benefits provided to insured or her family because of the insured's disability would permit offset of dependent Social Security disability benefits), aff'd, 391 Fed.Appx. 74, 80 (2d Cir.2010); Pennell v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 2010 WL 330259, at *5–7 (N.D.Ohio Jan. 21, 2010) (same, under arbitrary and capricious standard); Kennedy v. Hartford Ins. Co., 2009 WL 3007921, at *4–5 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2009) (same, under arbitrary and capricious standard), aff'd, 402 Fed.Appx. 610 (2d Cir.2010). We find no meaningful basis on which to distinguish the phrase “loss of income” interpreted in these cases from the phrase “loss of time” used in the plans at issue here.