until the insurer approved the submitted evidence, and (c) stating that an employee may obtain the evidence of insurability form from his employer. Id. See also Coker v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 09-14299, 2011 WL 5838218, *5-16 (E.D.Mich. Nov. 18, 2011) (finding that rejection of beneficiary’s claim for life insurance benefits was not arbitrary and capricious when employee was informed when enrolling for additional life insurance that proof of good health was required and that form for such proof could be printed; decision to deny additional life insurance benefits was consistent with plan language, and employer’s mistaken confirmation of additional life insurance was not plan modification); Hargis v. Idacorp, Inc., No. H-04-1692, 2005 WL 6456898, *11 (S.D.Tex. Oct. 26, 2005) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff contends that even if Defendants’
holding that decision of claims administrator was reasonable and fair given theemployees failure to submit evidence of insurability and the language in the spd and plan policy that the requested increased benefits would not be effective until the insurer approved their evidence holding that because the spd at issue stated that it is made part of the group policy its terms were sufficient to find that the plan conferred discretion on the plan administrator holding that a denial of benefits will not be reviewed de novo where the language of an erisa plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan holding that because no plan document granted discretion to the plan administrator and because the fiduciaries had not expressly delegated their discretionary authority to the plan administrator the district court properly employed the de novo standard of review holding that plan language granting the plan administrator the sole discretion to construe the terms of a long term disability policy and to determine eligibility under the policy triggered arbitrary and capricious review