Todd Flessner

I've seen ONE client's cash balance plan provide for no pre-retirement death benefits (not even to the estate) if the participant was not married. Rare but it's out there.

Having administered dozens & dozens of LS Windows for DB plans, when this scenario occurred, we have consistently seen plan sponsors tell TV participants like this that they are out of luck, predominantly for the reasons CuseFan cited above (including eligibility being tied to a valid/current address on file). Fortunately, this has been very, very rare given that we've handled LS Windows for over 100,000 participants, and our best practice is do conduct an address search for all members in the LS Window before materials are mailed, which minimizes this type of situation from happening.

If not documented in the Plan Document, then make sure your approach is in Administrative Documentation . The safest approach is always include interest. I've had many clients give direction like this for non-RASD: 1) Initially, do not include interest unless the delay is the administrator's fault; 2) if the person makes noise, complains or files a claim, then grant the interest. Issue with that is that it could be viewed as "inequitable" depending on how it's documented. But in plans that are administered effectively, cases of disputed interest should rarely come up.

I have no official source to cite, other than 10+ years spent working on a plan for a jumbo telecommunications company where workers represented by the CWA were covered by a similar provision. Each CBA is unique. For pension administration purposes, Layoff with Recall Rights was treated the same as other Terminations - the participant is terminated (no guarantee they will be rehired). The only special treatment was if they were rehired within a certain time frame then they received favorable treatment for service bridging (e.g., immediate bridging of prior service without waiting or counting the time while laid off, etc.). But for pension purposes, that plan treated Layoff with Recall Rights as a Terminated status because they were laid off, no longer working, and there was no guarantee they would be rehired (only being on a "preferred waiting list for future rehires").

A well designed window would also contemplate this type of situation beforehand. (based on past experience) We've all dealt with the various exceptions that pop up with windows in the past, so asking those questions up front will help deal with them on the back end. Follow the amendment language.

Wouldn't it be better/safer/more prudent for the plan to require each to submit a DRO that specifically states that the EE gets 100% and the AP gets 0%? Otherwise the plan is left open to a DRO later, even if they "promised" not to later submit one.