plan made benefits payable only after the insured supplied satisfactory proof of loss. Id. Similarly, the policy at issue in this case required satisfactory proof of disability, stating: We will begin paying Monthly Benefits in the amount determined from the Schedule when we receive due proof that: 1. You become Totally Disabled while insured for this Long Term Disability Insurance, and 2. Your Total Disability has continued for a period longer than the Benefit Waiting Period shown in the Schedule. (Def.’s Br., Ex. A at B11-l-12)(emphasis added). The Court is satisfied that the plan’s requirement of “due proof’ before benefits are paid is sufficient to grant discretionary authority upon the administrator. See Caldwell v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Amer., 959 F.Supp. 1361, 1365 (D.Kan.1997) (<HOLDING>); Patterson v. Caterpillar, Inc., 70 F.3d 503,
holding that when language is exactly the same in two statutory provisions the meaning of that language is also identical holding that shall language in rule 702h conveys a mandatory act holding that where the language of the contract is unambiguous and conveys a definite meaning the court may decide the meaning of the contract as a matter of law holding that language almost identical to the language in the policy at issue in this case ie due proof conveys discretionary authority holding depends on the policy language at hand