Subscribe (Free) to
Daily or Weekly Newsletters
Post a Job

Featured Jobs

Regional Vice President of Sales

The Retirement Plan Company
(Remote / AL / FL / GA / MS)

The Retirement Plan Company logo

Retirement Plan Administrator

Bates & Company, Inc.
(Remote / Winter Park FL)

Bates & Company, Inc. logo

Business Development Director

AimPoint Pension
(Remote / Pompano Beach FL / AL / GA)

AimPoint Pension logo

Loan & Distribution Specialist

AimPoint Pension
(Remote)

AimPoint Pension logo

Defined Benefit Combo Cash Balance Compliance Consultant

Loren D. Stark Company (LDSCO)
(Remote)

Loren D.  Stark Company (LDSCO) logo

Director of 3(16) Operations

Compass
(Remote / NH / Hybrid)

Compass logo

View More Employee Benefits Jobs

Free Newsletters

“BenefitsLink continues to be the most valuable resource we have at the firm.”

-- An attorney subscriber

Mobile app icon
LinkedIn icon     Twitter icon     Facebook icon

Ninth Circuit: More Generous Eligibility Language in Plan Document Trumps Conflicting SPD Language (PDF)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit via Findlaw Link to more items from this source
[Opinion]
June 24, 2002

Bergt v. The Retirement Plan for Pilots Employed by Markair, Inc., No. 99-36106 (9th Cir. Jun. 19, 2002). Excerpt: Although [plaintiff] Bergt qualifies to participate in the retirement plan by the terms of the plan master document, the SPD unambiguously prevents him from participating.... The critical issue in this case is how to interpret an ERISA plan when the plan master document unambiguously qualifies an employee as a member of the retirement plan, but the SPD unambiguously excludes him.

Please click here to report this link if it is broken (for example, if you see a "404 File Not Found" error message after you click on the linked news item's title).
An important word about authorship: BenefitsLink® created this link to the news item, but we are not the news item's author (unless expressly shown above).
© 2024 BenefitsLink.com, Inc.