Summary Calendar ANNA MCGINNIS v. Arco Pipe Line Company

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, this Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R.
47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
July 10, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
______________________
No. 05-20686
Summary Calendar
______________________
ANNA MCGINNIS
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ARCO PIPE LINE COMPANY;
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO;
BRITISH PETROLEUM CO;
BP AMERICA INC; BP PIPE LINE CO;
BP PIPELINES (NORTH AMERICA) (INC),
Defendants - Appellees.
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
C.A. No. H-03-3105
______________________
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant’s husband, Glenn McGinnis, was tragically killed on
his way home from work when a pine tree fell on the roof of his car.
Appellant sued Mr. McGinnis’s employer, Arco Pipe Line, under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). She sought to
recover benefits she claims were due under his work-related
accidental death benefits plan (“the Plan”). The district court

-- 1 of 3 --

2
granted summary judgment in favor of Arco Pipe Line.
The parties agree that the Plan provides benefits only if the
employee was “at work.” The issue presented in this appeal is
whether Mr. McGinnis should be considered “at work” while he was
commuting home. The underlying facts are not in dispute. Whether
the phrase “at work” as used in the Plan includes a commute home
raises a pure question of law. Our review is de novo. See Nickel
v. Estate of Estes, 122 F.3d 294, 298 (5th Cir. 1997). We conclude
that Mr. McGinnis was not “at work” at the time of his death, and
we therefore affirm the grant of summary judgment against
Appellant.
A benefits handbook given to employees explicitly provides,
“The plan won’t pay a benefit for any death that . . . occurs while
you’re commuting between your home and your regular place of work.”
In “ERISA parlance,” an “employee benefits handbook [is] a ‘Summary
Plan Description’ (SPD).” Sunbeam-Oster Co. Group Benefits Plan
for Salaried & Non-Bargaining Hourly Employees v. Whitehurst, 102
F.3d 1368, 1370 (5th Cir. 1996). We have held that SPDs are
binding. See Hansen v. Continental Ins., 940 F.2d 971, 982 (5th
Cir. 1991). Therefore, assuming arguendo that the term “at work”
is ambiguous, and that it might include a commute home, the
benefits handbook resolves any ambiguity in the Plan itself. Under
the benefits handbook, Mr. McGinnis was not “at work” within the
meaning of the Plan.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Appellant resists this conclusion by arguing that Mr. McGinnis
meets the definition of “on duty” contained within certain
Department of Transportation regulations. See 49 C.F.R. § 395.2.
Setting aside potential differences between the concepts of “at
work” and “on duty,” the definition of “on duty” in those
regulations does not govern the Plan. The “on duty” concept is
delineated for the purposes of hours-of-service regulations
promulgated by the Department of Transportation, not for death
benefits plans. See generally 49 C.F.R. § 395.
Because Mr. McGinnis was commuting home rather than “at work”
when he died, the district court correctly concluded that he was
not entitled to death benefits under the Plan.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --