The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kugler, United States District Judge:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION (Doc. No. 26)
This is a disability insurance coverage dispute stemming from an ERISA-governed insurance policy issued by Defendant Standard Insurance Company ("Standard"). Before the Court is Standard's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff alleges that Standard improperly reduced his disability benefits by subtracting benefits he received under a separate policy issued by North American Company for Life and Health Insurance ("North American"). Standard claims that the deduction was proper because the Standard policy expressly provides for the subtraction of benefits received under "other group insurance coverage," and the North American policy qualifies as "group insurance." Plaintiff responds that the North American policy is most appropriately characterized as "individual insurance." Plaintiff asserts individual and class claims for wrongful denial of benefits under ERISA. Plaintiff defines the putative class to include other Standard beneficiaries whose benefits Standard reduced by amounts they received under other policies. Because the North American policy bears the characteristics of a kind of collective insurance called "franchise insurance," and because the phrase "group insurance coverage" can reasonably include franchise insurance, the Court finds no basis to disturb Standard's interpretation or application of the Standard policy. The Court grants Standard's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff is a dentist. While practicing dentistry, Plaintiff obtained long term disability coverage under both the Standard policy and the North American policy. In 2008, Plaintiff became totally disabled and claimed coverage under both policies. Plaintiff's claims stem from Standard's determination that Plaintiff's benefits under the Standard policy should be reduced by the benefits he received under the North American policy.
The Standard policy is a group long-term disability policy that Standard issued to Plaintiff's employer, Endodontics, Ltd., P.C. ("Endodontics"). Plaintiff was covered by the Standard policy as a plan participant because he was a member of Endodontics. According to the Standard policy, a plan participant who becomes disabled is entitled to "LTD Benefits according to the terms of the Group Policy." (Pl.'s Second Compl. Ex. 1, at 4). "LTD benefits" are equal to a percentage of the plan participant's pre-disability earnings, "reduced by Deductible Income." (Id. at 2). "Deductible Income" includes "[a]ny amount you receive or are eligible to receive because of your disability under another group insurance coverage." (Id. at 13). The policy does not define "another group insurance coverage." The policy excludes from the definition of "Deductible Income" all "benefits from any individual disability insurance policy," but it does not define "individual disability insurance policy." (Id.).
The Standard policy also provides that Standard has "full and exclusive authority to control and manage the [Standard] Policy, to administer claims, and to interpret the [Standard] Policy and resolve all questions arising in the administration, interpretation, and application of the [Standard] policy." (Id. at 20). In that regard, Standard's "authority includes, but is not limited to, . . . [t]he right to determine: . . . eligibility for insurance; . . . [e]ntitlement to benefits; . . . [t]he amount of benefits payable; and . . . [t]he sufficiency and the amount of information [Standard] may reasonably require to [make those determinations]." (Id.) (formatting altered).
Plaintiff obtained coverage under the North American policy "through the American Association of Endodontics" (the "AAE"). (Ex. 3, at 1). Plaintiff attaches to the Second Amended Complaint a six-page document entitled "Certificate of Insurance" issued by North American (the "Certificate"). (Second Am. Compl. Ex. 2, at 1). The Certificate provides:
Having issued group policy PG A320 (herein called Policy) insuring members of the Association [the AAE] . . . .
HEREBY CERTIFIES that the member to whom this Certificate is issued (herein the Insured) is insured under and subject to all the provisions, definitions, limitations and conditions of said policy . . . as to injury and sickness as defined herein, provided such member is . . . on active, full-time duty . . .
(Id. at 1). The Certificate includes multiple other references to the interplay between "the policy" and "this Certificate." (See id. at 1, 5, 7). The Certificate also provides: "The policy is in possession of the Holder and may be inspected by the Insured at any time during business hours at the office of the Holder." (Id. at 8).
Plaintiff's disability entitles him to receive $10,000 a month under the Standard policy and $1,500 a month under the North American policy. However, Standard determined that Plaintiff's proceeds under the North American policy were "group insurance coverage," and therefore deductable from his "LTD Benefits" under the Standard policy. Thus, Standard pays Plaintiff only $8,500 per month in benefits under the Standard policy.
Plaintiff contested Standard's determination that the Certificate is "group insurance coverage." In support of his position, Plaintiff obtained a letter from North American stating:
As we previously explained, please understand that that [sic] Dr. Fleisher's North American Company policy . . . was issued through the American Association of Endodontics. Even though this policy was issued through this group, it is an individual disability income policy and we are treating all aspects of Dr.
Fleisher's claim as an individual disability income policy. (Second Am. Compl. Ex. 3). Plaintiff also alleges that "[a]ll insurance policies issued through professional associations are individual disability insurance policies." (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 7). Plaintiff does not cite the basis for this categorical statement. He insists, however, that "in terms of classifying policies as 'individual' in nature, all professional association disability insurance policies contain materially identical characteristics . . . [, and] the existence of these characteristics makes them inherently and uniformly 'individual' in nature." (Id. ¶¶ 9-10).
In that regard, Plaintiff claims that the North American policy is an individual rather than group policy because: (1) it was individually underwritten for Plaintiff; (2) Plaintiff paid the premiums directly; (3) Plaintiff "enrolled directly"; (4) Plaintiff submits claims directly to North American; (5) North American issues Plaintiff individual billing statements; and (6) the policy automatically renews at the end of each term. (Id.). According to Plaintiff, those features establish that the North American policy is not "group coverage" within the meaning of the Standard ...