Whether the ERISA Plan Administrator's interpretation of 'crime' to include speeding and improper passing was unreasonable when denying coverage under a crime exclusion in an accidental-death policy

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Amber Boyer’s brother died in a tragic car accident but his insurer, Unum Life Insurance Company of America, has refused to pay on the policy he purchased. This is an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) benefits-due case. Ms. Boyer is the beneficiary of an accidental-death and supplemental accidental-death policy purchased by her brother Eric Boyer. The plan administrator of the ERISA plan is Unum Life Insurance Company of America, denied coverage following Mr. Boyer’s death in a singlecar accident. Unum alleges that the crash occurred while Mr. Boyer was speeding and passing in a nopassing zone. As plan administrator, Unum determined that coverage was excluded under a “crime” exclusion in the accidental death policy. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the ERISA Plan Administrator's interpretation of “crime” to include speeding and improper passing was unreasonable when denying coverage under a crime exclusion in an accidental-death policy. 2. Whether the ERISA Plan Administrator's decision to deny accidental-death coverage was supported by substantial evidence. i