Hicklin v. Hartford Life & Acc, et al, No. 08-55071 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED DEC 22 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TERRI HICKLIN, Nos. 08-55071 08-55522 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:06-cv-04543-GAF-JTL v. MEMORANDUM * HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 8, 2010 Pasadena, California Before: TROTT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and MOSMAN, District Judge.** Terri Hicklin sued Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company ( Hartford ) for discontinuing her life insurance coverage and disability benefits. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Michael W. Mosman, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. Ms. Hicklin s policy with Hartford granted Hartford discretion to determine eligibility for benefits. The district court reviewed Hartford s decision to discontinue benefits de novo and ordered Hartford to reinstate life insurance coverage and disability benefits and to pay retroactive disability benefits. Hartford appeals, arguing that its decision should have been reviewed only for abuse of discretion. We review an ERISA administrator s decision de novo unless the plan grants the administrator discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits; then the review is for abuse of discretion. Metro. Life Ins., Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S 105, 111 (2008). However, if the administrator commits wholesale and flagrant violations of the procedural requirements of ERISA, the standard of review reverts back to de novo. Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 971 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc). The procedural violations cited by the district court are insufficient to justify reverting back to de novo review. But even when reviewed for abuse of discretion, this standard must be tempered with skepticism given the structural conflict presented by Hartford s simultaneous funding of the plan and evaluation of claims. See id. at 959. Reviewing the district court s findings under the proper Abatie standard, we conclude that the district court was justified in ordering reinstatement 2 of life insurance coverage and disability benefits and retroactive payment. We also conclude, given the evidence submitted by the parties in this case, that the district court did not err in finding Hicklin was a manager, and thus entitled to the higher level of benefits for managers. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion by awarding Hicklin attorneys fees or in the amount of its award. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
