In a recent decision, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision ruling that Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company was wrong in finding that a man disabled due to prostate cancer was not covered by his employer’s group policy when he became disabled.

According to the policy, the group contract covers “active, Full-time employees.” The court of appeal agreed with the district court that the plaintiff met the condition of being an “active, Full-time employee” because he performed some job responsibilities and his employer considered him a full-time employee during the month that his disability arose. Finding the term “active, Full-Time employee” to be ambiguous, the court interpreted the language in Carlile’s favor to mean that an employee is currently employed. Even though the plaintiff’s employment was winding down at the time he became disabled– he had been informed he would soon be terminated was doing less work – he was still considered a full-time employee by his employer and was being paid as such.

The court of appeal cited a serious of federal court decisions that supported its position, including Campbell v. Unum Life ins. Co., No. CIV A., 03-1445, 2004 WL 1497712, at *13-14 (E.D. La. July 2, 2004) in which a New Orleans federal judge construed the term “active employment” against a disability insurer, finding that active employment does not end when an employee’s position is temporarily modified without a status change.

The case is Carlile v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., No. 19-4123, __F.3d__, 2021 WL 671582 (10th Cir. Feb. 22, 2021).