Hankins v. Standard Insurance
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9674
8th Cir.2012Background
- Hankins, director of Commercial Security Operations, had duties including managerial and some physical requirements.
- Standard’s policy defines Own Occupation by general national-economic description of similar jobs and material duties, not solely claimant’s actual duties.
- Hankins injured his hamstring during training for physical evaluations and was terminated; he applied for long-term disability on Feb 8, 2010.
- Paquette (vocational case manager) determined Hankins’s job aligned with a sedentary Security Manager (Any Industry) in the DOT, denying benefits on Apr 8, 2010.
- Hankins requested reconsideration Dec 14, 2010; White offered alternative DOT titles (Public Safety Officer, Deputy Police Chief) and argued for stronger age considerations.
- Standard upheld the denial on Mar 15, 2011; Hankins sued in district court, which granted Standard summary judgment; Hankins appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plan gives discretionary review of ambiguities | Hankins: no explicit discretion; review de novo. | Standard: policy reserves interpretation; discretionary review applies. | Abuse-of-discretion review applies. |
| Whether DOT-based occupation determination comports with the policy | Hankins: actual duties should control; DOT misapplied. | Standard: policy looks to generally performed occupations, not claimant’s precise duties. | DOT-based approach consistent with policy; not abuse. |
| Whether conflict of interest affects the outcome | Hankins: insurer-administrator conflict weighs against Standard. | Conflict is a factor but not determinative where substantial evidence supports denial. | Conflict of interest not determinative; substantial evidence supports denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Finley v. Special Agents Mut. Benefit Ass'n, Inc., 957 F.2d 617 (8th Cir. 1992) (factors guiding abuse-of-discretion review)
- Kennedy v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 31 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 1994) (policy language granting discretion triggers deferential review)
- Darvell v. Life Ins. Co. of North America, 597 F.3d 929 (8th Cir. 2010) (DOT-based occupation analysis allowed under generic approach)
- Osborne v. Hartford Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 465 F.3d 296 (6th Cir. 2006) (occupation is a general term allowing DOT-based determination)
- Carrow v. Standard Ins. Co., 664 F.3d 1254 (8th Cir. 2012) (conflict-of-interest factor considered in context)
- McKeehan v. Cigna Life Ins. Co., 344 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 2003) (explicit discretion-granting language discussed)