Barklage v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 84-1028-CV-W-1.
| Decision Date | 17 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1028-CV-W-1.,84-1028-CV-W-1. |
| Citation | 614 F. Supp. 51 |
| Parties | Frances J. BARKLAGE, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Charles W. Hess, Sr., Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.
Niles S. Corson, of Swanson, Midgley, Gangwere, Clarke & Kitchin, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.
This diversity case, removed from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, was originally filed in two counts. Count II, which sought punitive damages in addition to the penalties provided in Missouri Revised Statute Section 375.420, was dismissed by Order of this Court on July 5, 1984.
Count I, which now pends on cross motions for summary judgment, alleges that defendant is liable for the payment of certain disability benefits provided under a group long term disability policy which covers plaintiff as an employee of the defendant. We have considered all of the numerous briefs, affidavits, responses and replies that have been filed by the parties in support and in opposition to the pending cross motions for summary judgment. By letters to the Court, both plaintiff and defendant stated their agreement that the case is now in a posture for ruling.
We find and conclude that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
It is undisputed that plaintiff was covered by the group insurance policy, 50-LTD-1, which provided for an employees' benefit plan offered by defendant to its employees and participated in by plaintiff. (Stip.Doc. # 1). A copy of a summary of the policy upon which plaintiff relies is one of the documents before the Court under the stipulation of the parties. (Stip.Doc. # 6).
The parties agree that plaintiff was determined to be disabled on March 9, 1981. Pursuant to defendant's insurance program she received temporary disability benefits for approximately six months at which time it was agreed that she became eligible for long term disability benefits. There is no dispute that defendant complied with the terms of the contract in regard to the payment of the temporary disability payments. (Depo. of Pl., p. 110).
It is further agreed that on September 12, 1981 plaintiff became eligible for the payment of long term disability benefits through the group insurance policy offered by defendant, 50-LTD-1. The dispute between the parties relates to the monthly amount of the long term disability benefits to which plaintiff is entitled.
The amount of the monthly benefit is contingent upon the employee's monthly compensation at the time of the on-set of disability, and upon the length of employment with the company. The parties agree that plaintiff had worked for defendant for over ten years before the on-set of her disability. It is also agreed that her monthly compensation for purposes of figuring the benefit due was $1,633.67 ($377.00 per week). Seventy percent is thus $1,143.57 and fifty percent is $816.84.
Section 6(B) of the policy sets forth the "Schedule of Insurance and Initial Premium Rates" in the following form:
Class Initial Monthly
Years of Continuous Long Term Disability Rate per
Service at Date of Income Insurance $1,000 of Covered
Disability (Monthly Benefit)* Payroll
(United States and
Canada)
A. Employees employed
in New York State: No Insurance
B. All other Employees
employed in the
United States: $2.07
The amount of Monthly Benefit shall be an amount equal
to the applicable percentage specified below of the
Employee's Monthly Compensation*, as determined by
the Employer, subject to a minimum Monthly Benefit of
$50.00
During First Six Months Seventh and Subsequent
For Which Monthly Months For Which Monthly
Benefits are Payable Benefits are payable
Less than 5 years 50% 50%
5 years but less than
10 years 60% 50%
10 years or more 70% 50%
Section 7(1) of the policy, the "coordination of benefits" provision, states as follows:
The relevant provisions of the "Summary of Your Insurance and Retirement Program and Other Employee Benefit Plans" provided to the employees was set forth in the following form:
|------
4. Benefits are payable as follows, with a | These benefits are reduced by
minimum LTD benefit of $50 a month: | the amount of disability benefits
| for which you are eligible
If you have the You are paid the following | because of any motor vehicle
following years percentage of | no-fault insurance law, or under
of service at the your monthly salary | any workmen's compensation
date of your disability as of the date of your | law, occupational disease
disability | law, state or government cash
First After | sickness compensation law or
6 months 6 months | any fund, insurance or other
Less than 5 50% 50% | arrangement established in
5 but less than 10 60% 50% --------| conformity with such law and
10 and over 70% 50% | also by any Social Security disability
| and old age benefits for
| which you are eligible
|------
5. After you have received LTD benefits for
six months, the total of your benefits from
LTD, Social Security (including family benefits)
workmen's compensation and no-fault
insurance may not be more than 70
percent of your monthly salary at the time
you were disabled. If your total benefits
are greater, your LTD benefit will be reduced
to bring your combined benefits to 70
percent of the monthly salary you were
receiving when you became disabled. However
the minimum LTD benefit will still be
$50 a month.
On August 5, 1981 plaintiff signed a document entitled a "Reimbursement Agreement Regarding Monthly Advances For Which Social Security Benefits May Be Payable." Her application for benefits was then pending before the Social Security Administration.
The reimbursement agreement stated in part:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stuart v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
...of government benefits when private beneficiary received lump-sum retroactive Social Security benefits); Barklage v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 614 F.Supp. 51 (W.D.Mo.1985) (language in Plan and Reimbursement Agreement substantially similar to language in this case entitled defendant to re......
-
Anweiler v. American Elec. Power Service Corp.
...which the insured is entitled to receive. Stuart v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 664 F.Supp. 619 (D.Me.1987); Barklage v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 614 F.Supp. 51 (W.D.Mont.1985); O'Connell v. Prudential Ins. Co., No. 82-3078, 1984 U.S.Dist.LEXIS (D.Mass. Nov. 15, While the AEP disability ......
-
Dunn v. Heckler
... ... Redic v. Gary H. Watts Realty Co., 586 F.Supp. 699 (W.D.N.C.1984). The Court will ... ...
-
Lessard v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
...would be entitled to full Plan benefits and the Social Security payment. Id. at 623-4. See also, e.g., Barklage v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 614 F.Supp. 51, 59 (D.Mo.1985) ("The retroactive award of benefits proves that plaintiff was eligible at the time for such benefits. Plaintiff ......