Ford GRP Denied Claim After Death of Alternate Payee

[Highgravity]

Ford recently denied my claim for my ex-wife’s share of my pension benefits under the General Retirement Plan (DB) that I submitted after she passed away last year.  She had not received any of her share of the benefits.  I took a lump sum for my share when I retired. 

Our QDRO is from 2008 and doesn’t address lump sums (they weren’t offered until 2012).  The key points from the QDRO are:

SHARED PAYMENT APPROACH:  This QDRO utilizes the shared payment approach, whereby the Alternate Payee's assigned share of the benefits remains based on the life expectancy of the Participant.

DEATH OF THE ALTERNATE PAYEE: If the Alternate Payee predeceases the Participant either prior to or after her commencement of benefits, the Alternate Payee's portion of benefits shall revert to the Participant.

The denial letter from Ford includes several excerpts from plan documents on lump sum eligibility and amounts along with QDRO rules for Separate Interest that all seem irrelevant.  There is no explanation except for this last confusing paragraph:

Records indicate that you elected to receive a lump sum benefit payment with a commencement date of August 1, 2022, and your lump sum payment was processed on October 15, 2022. Per the terms of your Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), if the contributing Participant elects a lump sum form of benefit payment, the Alternate Payee's portion of benefit will not revert back to the Participant if the Alternate Payee predeceases the Participant prior to benefit commencement. As a result of the Alternate Payee's election, the portion of her pension benefits will not revert back to you. Exceptions to the Plan rules are not permitted. Therefore, your request is denied.

Is there a valid reason in here that I’m missing on why I shouldn’t get her share of the benefits? If not, can anyone recommend a good lawyer?

[Bill Presson]

Looks to me like they gave you the reason and I would presume her beneficiary gets the benefits. 

[Highgravity]

Thanks Bill.  They did give me a reason but I don't understand it.  It appears to be based on terms they say are in my QDRO but are not and Alternate Payee's elections when she didn't make any. 

My best guess is that they're treating my QDRO as a separate interest even though it says it's shared payments.  However, they also seem to think the fact that I took a lump sum is important.  

I can appeal this decision but it's hard to do since I don't know what the problem is.

[david rigby]

Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be some missing information; specifically, the plan provisions that inform/guide the conclusion.  If you appeal, you should request that information along with the reasoning for how those provisions lead to any particular conclusion, as well as pointing out the "shared payment" information.  (Maybe they have already done this; we cannot be sure from your posting.)  

Also, your original post implies there was a 2012 plan amendment.  You will want to know the specifics of that amendment, as well as the corresponding plan language immediately prior.