the Plan. (See Pl.s’ Response at 38, Doc. 25-1.) B. Burden of Proof A claimant suing under ERISA has the burden of proving entitlement to plan benefits. Horton v. Reliance Std. Life Ins. Co., 141 F.3d 1038, 1040 (11th Cir.1998) (internal citation omitted). However, “if the insurer claims that a specific policy exclusion applies to deny the insured benefits, the insurer generally must prove the exclusion prevents coverage.” Id. (internal citation omitted). Plaintiff argues that the Limitation Provision at issue here is a policy exclusion, and thus, the burden shifts to MetLife to prove the applicability of the Limitations Provision as a basis to terminate Plaintiffs long term disability benefits. See Owens v. Rollins, No. 1:08-cv-287, 2010 WL 3843765, *2 n. 4 (E.D.Ten. Sept. 27, 2010) (<HOLDING>). MetLife argues the burden of proof remains
holding that the plaintiffs have the burden of proof and persuasion as to the existence of standing holding that defendant must establish the application of the limitationexclusion to the plaintiffs claim where defendant did not contest the plaintiffs assertion that defendant bore the burden of proof in this case because the limitation on benefits for mental and nervous conditions is a coverage exclusion and the plan documents contained no express provision regarding burden of proof holding that additional instructions were necessary when the statutory definition of the charged offense by itself suggested that the defendant bore the burden of proof holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant holding that any potential prejudice regarding burdenshifting is diminished by the prosecutors statement that the burden of proof is the governments and the courts explicit instructions regarding the burden of proof in the jury charge