Under the circumstances, the Court finds, as a matter of law, that this is the kind of information that one would rely upon when acting reasonably. Furthermore, just because this Court may have conducted the investigation differently does not mean the Administrator abused his discretion. Simply put, although Plaintiff alleges a conflict of interest and an inadequate investigation, he offers insufficient evidence to support his contentions and avoid summary judgment. Indeed, to the contrary, the evidence overwhelmingly reveals that the Administrator acted properly and did not abuse his discretion. Thus, in light of the stringent legal standard that Plaintiff must overcome to overturn the Administrator’s decision, Plaintiffs claims must fail here. See Southern Farm, 993 F.2d at 103-04 (<HOLDING>); Pierre, 932 F.2d at 1563. (holding that a
holding that claims were preempted where the factual basis of the complaint was the denial of reimbursement of plan benefits recognizing that plan participants should be able to access information about the plan administrators fiduciary duties from the plan administrators counsel holding that a plan administrators denial of benefits based on the factual determination about a plan participants cause of death was supported by autopsy report and three medical records and therefore it was a reasonable decision holding that a subclass of plan participants could sue where the remedy sought by plaintiffs would benefit the plan as a whole and  cure any harm that the plan suffered holding that in a recovery of benefits claim only the plan and the administrators and trustees of the plan in their capacity as such may be held liable