language. Rather, denying a claimant benefits who was injured as a result of using alcohol with a blood alcohol level of .148% is directly in line with the language specifically excluding injuries arising from the use of alcohol in excess of the legal limit as prescribed by state or federal statute. Thus, the Court finds that the Plan Administrator’s decision was reasonable based on the Self-inflicted and/or Intentional Injury exclusion. See Lennon v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 504 F.3d 617, 622 (6th Cir.2007)(concluding that it was not arbitrary and capricious for a Plan Administrator to deny benefits under a self-inflicted injury exclusion to a beneficiary of an insured who died as a result of drunk driving); Eckelberry v. Reliastar Life Ins. Co., 469 F.3d 340, 342 (4th Cir.2006)(<HOLDING>)] Cates v. Metropolitan Life Ins., 149 F.3d
holding that despite assurances from the insurance company that the insured could file the pol after femas deadline the insured could not collect because the insured was responsible for timely filing holding that an ownedproperty exclusion did not apply with respect to property that the insured bought only after the policy periods for which the insured sought coverage holding that an erisa fiduciary did not act unreasonably when it denied benefits to an insured beneficiary after the insured died from driving with a blood alcohol level 50 higher than the legal limit holding that regardless of the subjective belief of the insured the record established a basis to believe that the insured had committed an act that could give rise to a claim under the policy holding a personal profit exclusion applicable to an insured corporation where the purpose of the exclusion was to exclude coverage when the insured received profits to which the insured was not legally entitled