
    Nancy DOUGLAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRST UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-2479-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    July 5, 2011.
    Scott M. Riemer, Riemer & Associates, LLC, New York, NY, for Appellant.
    Patrick W. Begos, Begos Horgan & Brown LLP, Westport, CT, for Appellee.
    
      Present: ROGER J. MINER, JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN and ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Nancy Douglas appeals from a summary judgment entered June 22, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Marrero, J.) in favor First Unum Life Insurance Company (“Unum”), dismissing Douglas’s complaint. The complaint alleged that Unum unreasonably denied her request for long term disability benefits. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues presented on appeal.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment in an ERISA action. Hobson v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 574 F.3d 75, 82 (2d Cir.2009). “Although generally an administrator’s decision to deny benefits is reviewed de novo, where, as here, written plan documents confer upon a plan administrator the discretionary authority to determine eligibility, we will not disturb the administrator’s ultimate conclusion unless it is arbitrary and capricious.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

As the Supreme Court has noted, “[o]f-ten the entity that administers the [ERISA] plan, such as an employer or an insurance company, both determines whether an employee is eligible for benefits and pays benefits out of its own pocket.” Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 108, 128 S.Ct. 2343, 171 L.Ed.2d 299 (2008). Because “this dual role creates a conflict of interest,” “a reviewing court should consider that conflict as a factor in determining whether the plan administrator has abused its discretion in denying benefits” and “the significance of [that] factor will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case.” Id.

The district court carefully examined the circumstances of Douglas’s late filing, considered the dual role of Unum as a factor in its decision, and determined that there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of benefits. We agree with that determination. Accordingly, we conclude, for substantially the same reasons articulated by the district court, that the district court properly granted Unum’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.  