Dowdy v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., No. 16-15824 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment for MetLife in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) action. MetLife denied coverage because plaintiff's leg injury was complicated by his diabetes. The panel held, however, that plaintiff was entitled to coverage because his diabetes did not substantially cause his leg injury from an automobile accident nor did diabetes contribute to his injury. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The panel reversed the district court’s judgment in favor of the defendant in an ERISA action challenging the denial of accidental dismemberment benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan. The plaintiff suffered a serious injury to his left leg as the result of an automobile accident, and his leg was eventually amputated below the knee. The defendant denied coverage because the plaintiff’s injury was complicated by his diabetes. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence outside the administrative record, and any error on this issue was harmless because the external evidence did not support the plaintiff’s claim. Under the ERISA plan, the plaintiff was entitled to coverage if his car accident was the “direct and sole cause” of the loss, and if amputation “was a direct result of the accidental injury, independent of other causes.” The panel held that, even under the more demanding “substantial contribution” standard used when the applicable plan language is conspicuous, the plaintiff was entitled to recovery because the record did not support a finding that the pre- existing condition of diabetes substantially contributed to his loss. DOWDY V. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. 3 The panel remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.
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.