Fine v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, No. 1:2014cv00551 - Document 76 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 4/6/15. (gwalk, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Fine v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada Doc. 76 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division JEFFREY P. FINE, Plaintiff / Counterclaim Defendant, I:14cv551 (LMB/TCB) V. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, Defendant / Counterclaimant. MEMORANDUM OPINION This action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. ยง 1001,et seq.. arises from defendant Sun Life Assurance Companyof Canada's ("Sun Life" or "defendant") termination of plaintiff Jeffrey P. Fine's ("Fine" or "plaintifP') long-term disability ("LTD") benefits. The parties disagree as to whether Fine ceased being eligible to receive LTD benefits under the terms of an employee benefit plan administered and insured by Sun Life. Specifically, Fine argues that he never ceased being eligible for LTD benefits and has filed suit to recover the benefits that have accrued since Sun Life terminated his benefits (the "ERISA claim"). In contrast, Sun Life argues that Fine has been ineligible for LTD benefits since January 1,2012, and has counterclaimed against Fine to recover payments made after that date. The parties' filed cross-motions for summary judgment on both the ERISA claim and the counterclaim, on which the Court heard oral argument. For the reasons discussed in open court and those that follow, the Court finds that Sun Life did not abuse its discretion in terminating Fine's benefits but that equitable considerations now prevent Sun Life from recouping most of the amount previously paid in error. Dockets.Justia.com derivation from, rather than out of a source." Sun Life contends thatunder the language of the 2011 NEC Agreement, the bonus arose, flowed, emanated, and was "derived" from the work Fine agreed to perform underthe agreement. Essentially, Sun Life argues that but for Fine's employment with CIBT, he would not have received the bonus and therefore the bonus was derived from work performed in that it was derived from Fine's emplojmient. The structure of the 2011 NEC Agreement supports Sun Life's position. Despite the 2011 NEC Agreement's re-characterization of the annual bonus as a "profit sharing bonus," which Sun Life argueswas an attemptto bringthe bonus outside of the Policy's definition of Disability Earnings, the bonus remained housed in the section labeled "Compensation," just as it had been in the 2010 NEC Agreement. This sectiondescribes "Compensation"as consisting of two main components, the annual $50,000 salary and the annual profit sharing bonus: (b) Compensation. (i) During the Term, the Executive: (A) shall be entitled to (1) an annual fee of $50,000 per year, payable by the Company paid in ratable installments in accordance wiA the Company's payroll practices, (2) reimbursements for Executive's cell phone, blackberry (or similar devices^ and one home office telephone line payable in accordance with the Company's reimbursement policies, and (3) participation in the Company's welfare, employee benefit and fringe benefit programs on the same terms as are applicable to senior executives of the Company; provided that during the Term the Company shall pay the frill premium cost for the participation of the Executive and his eligible dependents in the Company's healthcare programs; and (B) shall be eligible to receive from the Company a profit sharing bonus in such amount, if any, as may be determined by the Holdco Board, in its sole and absolute discretion, if the Company's performance is sufficient (as determined by the Holdco Board in its sole and absolute discretion) to warrant such bonus (it being understood that if the Holdco Board determines in its sole and absolute discretion that any such bonus shall be paid to Executive, such bonus payment shall be paid in cash in the calendar year following the calendar year to which such bonus relates at the same time annual bonuses are paid to senior executives of the Company). 16
]]>
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.
