LARRY WEBER, Plaintiff -- Appellee, v. GE GROUP LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant -- Appellant., 541 F.3d 1002

Summary

Although the widower reiterated his contention that ERISA did not preempt his state-law claims because the life insurance policy at issue fell within the scope of the 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-1(j) safe harbor, his argument was crippled by his failure to cross-appeal the district court's decision denying remand after the removal. Thus, the court could not consider the widower's renewal of his remand argument. The insurer advanced two interrelated arguments for overturning the district court's summary judgment decision. First, it argued that the decedent was never eligible for the life insurance coverage because she did not work 30 hours per week after the effective date. Second, the insurer argued that the decedent was never actively at work after the effective date. Affirming, the court held that the insurer's interpretation of the policy's eligibility and "actively at work" language was arbitrary. The plain language of the "actively at work" provision did not require that the employee work ...