as a circumstance “which may result in disqualification, ineligibility, or denial or loss of benefits.” 29 U.S.C. § 1022(b); see Dodson v. Woodmen of World Life Ins. Soc’y, 109 F.3d 436, 439 (8th Cir.1997) (noting that the omission from the SPD of a time limit for filing suit violated § 1022(b) because the time limit was a circumstance that might result in loss of benefits). Therefore, the placement and display of the deadline must meet the statutory and regulatory standards. We hold that the manner of disclosure in this case met those standards. First, placement of the deadline in the Disability chapter, rather than in the Administrative chapter (where Plaintiff argues it should have appeared) was reasonable. See Abena v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 544 F.3d 880, 884 (7th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). The correspondence that MetLife sent to
recognizing that owens clarified wilson and designating the sixyear limitations period in section 54105 subd 15 as the applicable limitations period for section 1983 claims holding that insurance plans thirtynine 39 month contractual limitations period shorter than statute of limitations was reasonable and thus enforceable holding that the statute of limitations for  1983 claims is the most closely analogous state limitations period for general personal injury claims holding that placement of a contractual limitations period in a section entitled claims was reasonable holding that the limitations period in section 13  214a takes precedence over the limitations period for personal injuries found in section 13  202 of the code