Helen Thompson v. Life Insurance Co., No. 09-12634 (11th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ________________________ No. 09-12634 ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUNE 21, 2010 JOHN LEY CLERK D. C. Docket No. 06-01201-CV-T-17-MAP HELEN THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _________________________ (June 21, 2010) EDMONDSON and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and BARBOUR,* District Judge. * Honorable William Henry Barbour, Jr., United States District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi, sitting by designation. PER CURIAM: Appellant-Plaintiff Helen Thompson s husband died as a result of an injury sustained while on a business trip in Florida. He had been drinking and, while walking, fell in a parking lot, hitting his head. His life insurance policy through LINA contains an exclusion for accidents caused by or resulting from the insured s intoxication as determined according to the laws of the jurisdiction in which the accident occurred. Florida law contains no general definition of legal intoxication. LINA denied benefits, claiming that the DUI statute establishes 0.08% as the legal limit. ERISA applies to this case. The district court granted Defendant LINA summary judgment. After hearing oral argument and looking repeatedly at Florida s laws, we regard the only debatable issue in this appeal to be whether the district court was to determine de novo about the administrator s denial of benefits or to determine whether the denial was arbitrary or capricious. But we do not decide that issue. It is unnecessary. If a de novo standard applies, we are unanimous in concluding that Plaintiff s husband was not intoxicated as determined according to the laws of Florida. If the arbitrary and capricious standard applies, a majority of today s court 2 concludes that the administrator s denial of coverage was arbitrary or capricious given Florida s laws. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court. REVERSED. 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.
