Plan Administrator’s interpretation renders any language in the Plan meaningl explanation for its decision, supported by substantial evidence, it should not be disturbed.” Parkman v. Prudential Insurance Co., 439 F.3d 767, 772 (8th Cir.2006)(citing Fletcher-Merrit v. NorAm Energy Corp., 250 F.3d 1174, 1180-81 (8th Cir.2001)); McGee, 360 F.3d at 924 (8th Cir.2004). Therefore, as the administrative record demonstrates that the Plan Administrator’s decision was reasonable, was supported by substantial evidence on the record, and was not an abuse of discretion, defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 63) is GRANTED and plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 56) is DENIED. Because the Court finds that the Plan Administrator’s decision to deny coverage 655 (8th Cir.2006)(<HOLDING>) and Davolt, 206 F.3d at 809 (holding same).
holding that plan administrator that was also insurer operated under conflict of interest holding that when the insurer is also the plan administrator we have recognized something akin to a rebuttable presumption of a palpable conflict of interest holding that it is wrong to assume a financial conflict of interest from the fact that the plan administrator is also the insurer holding that a structural conflict of interest exists when an insurer acts as both the plan administrator and the funding source holding the district court erred by finding an automatic conflict of interest merely because insurer and administrator were the same