UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
JACK E. MARTIN, Defendant.
Robert B. Miller, Kilmer, Voorhees & Laurick, P.C., Portland, Oregon. Attorney for Plaintiff
William C. Carpenter, Jr., Eugene, Oregon. Attorney for Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
ANN AIKEN, District Judge.
Plaintiff Unum Life Insurance Company of America (Unum) moves for summary judgment against defendant Jack Martin regarding the amount Martin owes Unum pursuant to a contract between the parties. For the reasons set forth below, Unum's motion is granted.
Martin participated in a group long-term disability insurance plan (the Policy), offered through Unum, with his employer Benton County. During the course of his employment, Martin became unable to work and filed a disability claim with Unum. On June 18, 2000, the claim was approved and Martin began receiving benefits.
Under the Policy, any Social Security disability income (SSDI) Martin or his family received from the Social Security Administration (SSA) was deductible from Martin's monthly benefits. The Policy also permitted Unum to deduct an estimated SSDI amount from Martin's monthly payments while the final determination of Martin's eligibility for SSDI was pending. Martin subsequently applied for and was denied SSDI. He appealed that decision.
On October 15, 2004, Martin signed a reimbursement agreement with Unum that deferred the estimated SSDI deduction under the Policy, allowing Martin to receive full monthly payments from Unum until a final determination was made by the SSA. Under this agreement, Martin was required to repay Unum any overpayment he acquired by receiving Social Security benefits. SSDI benefits were eventually awarded, with the notice of award letter dated September 18, 2011.
Unum did not receive the notice of award letter when it expected to, and it attempted to recover incorrect, and perhaps Bremature, estimates of the overpayment amount owed by Martin. Regardless, Unum now states that Martin owes $171, 070.33 based on SSDI benefits he received, and that Martin also owes $25, 231.75 based on SSDI awards to Martin's children. Unum states that it has already recovered $45, 596.40 by reducing Martin's monthly benefit under the Policy.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgmertt as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Whether or not a fact is material is determined by the substantive law on the issue. T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n , 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). There is a genuine dispute if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
Special rules of construction apply to evaluating summary judgment motions: (1) all reasonable doubts as to the existence of genuine issues of material fact should be resolved against the moving party; and (2) all inferences must be drawn in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. T.W. Elec. , 809 F.2d at 630-31.
The only matter that is currently before the· court is the issue of Martin's overpayment. The parties agree that Martin owes Unum an overpayment amount, but disagree on what that amount is. Points of contention include the SSDI benefits that Martin's children received, the amount of attorneys' fees that Martin incurred in ...