unintended promises of retiree health coverage?

[Peter Gulia]

The Supreme Court of the United States, in its recent decision in M&G Polymers, provided some guidance about how to construe and interpret writings that are ambiguous about promises of health coverage for retirees.

Here's my question: Looking only to non-governmental employers, and only outside a collective-bargaining context, how often does this issue happen?

Are there still employers left that have not cut off obligations and expectations?

If so, what circumstances lead to not revising the documents?

[jpod]

Even if you've had the standard "reservation of rights" language in the "official" documents for years/decades, you never know what potentially contradictory statements have been made in writing, let alone orally, that could be used to defeat a motion to dismiss (or worse). So, I guess that means the answer to your second question is yes. The best advice, if you are going to announce a cut back or elimination, is to give as much advance notice as possible (a full year or more is nice), and then re-announce it periodically, so that whatever ammunition someone might have hopefully will be fired at you earlier rather than later, thereby giving you an opportunity to evaluate it in advance.

Can't answer your first question, and your third question implies that revising the documents solves the problem, but that may not always be the case, which is the source of the problem.

[Peter Gulia]

Thank you for your good help.

So is this kind of ambiguity problem about an employer that doesn't control what its executives write?