In Griffin v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Company, No. 17-1251 (4th Cir. 2018), Scott Griffin commenced an action under ERISA against Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company (“Hartford Life”) as the administrator of his employer’s welfare benefit plan (the “Plan”), seeking a continuation of the long-term disability benefits that Hartford Life had terminated based on its conclusion that Griffin was no longer “disabled,” as that term is used in the Plan.
The district court granted summary judgment to Hartford Life, and Griffin filed this appeal, contending that the district court erred: (1) in reviewing the administrator’s decision for abuse of discretion, rather than de novo, and (2) in concluding that Griffin failed to provide evidence sufficient to support a conclusion that Hartford Life’s decision to terminate the long-term disability benefits was unreasonable.
Upon reviewing the case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Court”) affirmed the district court’s summary judgment. As to the standard for reviewing the administrator’s decision, the Court noted that the applicable documents gave discretion to Hartford Life, so that an abuse of discretion review of its decision is warranted. It rejected the contention that a person other than Hartford Life made the decision to terminate Griffin’s benefits, since the decision makers were acting as agents of Hartford Life. As to the reasonableness of Hartford Life’s decision, the Court said that it agreed with the district court that Hartford Life’s decision was reasonable and therefore did not amount to an abuse of discretion. The record readily shows that Griffin received a fair and thorough consideration of his claim and that Hartford Life’s conclusion was reasonably supported by the available evidence.