eligibility for coverage; and 4. Determine whether proof of your loss is satisfactory for receipt of benefit payments according to the terms and conditions of the Plan. (See id. at P0433-034.) Defendants argue that because the above-quoted language is contained in the same document as the STD Plan Summary, the Court should interpret it to apply to the STD Plan as well. The above-quoted language, however, appears in a section generally headed “LTD Plan Summary.” (See id. at P0414, P0427.) Because the document is, at best, ambiguous as to whether the quoted language applies to both plans, the Court cannot say that it unambiguously grants Kemper discretion to determine eligibility for benefits under the STD Plan or to interpret the terms of the STD Plan. See Kearney, 175 F.3d at 1089-90 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court concludes that the
holding abuse of discretion review is appropriate when erisa plan grants discretion to the plan administrator holding that the decision whether to grant a continuance lies in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion holding plan language requiring satisfactory written proof that you have become disabled did not unambiguously confer discretion in the plan administrator holding where plan language can be interpreted both to grant discretion and not to grant discretion plan does not unambiguously grant discretion holding that even though the summary plan description did not include discretionary language the grant of discretionary authority in the plan controlled