Prudential Insurance Company of America v. P. Kellie C. Brimberry

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
P. KELLIE C. BRIMBERRY,
Defendant/Cross-Claimant- Appellant.
and
FIDUCIARY TRUST INTERNATIONAL
OF CALIFORNIA; FRANKLIN
TEMPLETON COMPANIES, LLC;
FIDUCIARY TRUST COMPANY
INTERNATIONAL; FRANKLIN
TEMPLETON COMPANIES, LLC
GROUP CONTRACT G-50408-CA,
Defendants-cross-defendants,
No. 14-56209
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-07429-RSWL-
AJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Ronald S.W. Lew, Senior District Judge, Presiding
FILED
JUN 30 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 4 --

Argued and Submitted June 9, 2016
Pasadena, California
Before: REINHARDT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges and KORMAN,** District
Judge.
P. Kellie Brimberry appeals the district court’s ruling that she is entitled to only
$375,000 in basic accidental death coverage as the beneficiary of her deceased
husband’s ERISA life-insurance plan. On appeal, she contends that Prudential was
obligated to pay $1 million in basic accidental death coverage, the sum of her basic
term life and optional term life awards, because of various alleged ambiguities in the
plan. The district court correctly interpreted the language of the provision in the plan
governing basic accidental death. On de novo review, we affirm. See Babikian v.
Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 63 F.3d 837, 839 (9th Cir. 1995).
The explicit language of the contested provision states, in relevant part, that the
amount payable for basic accidental death benefits is “equal to the amount for which
you are insured under the Basic Employee Term Life Coverage.” The parties have
stipulated that the amount payable for basic employee term life coverage is $375,000.
Because this contractual language is “clear and explicit and does not lead to an absurd
** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
2

-- 2 of 4 --

result, we ascertain [the parties’] intent from the written provisions and go no further.”
See Helfand v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 295, 299 (Ct. App. 1992).
Thus, Brimberry is entitled to only $375,000 in basic accidental death benefits.
All of Brimberry’s attempts to inject ambiguity into this provision are without
merit. Adopting her interpretations of the phrases “as determined above” and “your
amount of insurance” would either render portions of the accidental death provision
superfluous or be contrary to how the average reader would interpret the plan based
on its unambiguous language and logical organization. Nor is the provision at issue
an ambiguous and unenforceable policy exclusion. Prudential is not denying
coverage, but merely contesting the amount owed. See Haynes v. Farmers Ins. Exch.,
89 P.3d 381, 385 (Cal. 2004).
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 4 --

4

-- 4 of 4 --