Cancienne v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

1 Citing brief

  1. Brock v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

    RESPONSE BRIEF

    Filed February 2, 2018

    Other courts have similarly found that it is reasonable for an insurer to apply the illness exclusion to deny coverage where the exception to the infection exclusion was triggered. See Cancienne v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 2011 WL 121910, *11-13 (E.D. La. 2011) (“[T]he fact that [the infection] exclusion does not apply cannot affirmatively create coverage where none otherwise exists . . . MetLife correctly interpreted and applied the terms of the plan and did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the amputation . . . was additionally excluded by the physical illness exclusion.”).