Featured Jobs
Plumbers Local Union No. 1 Benefit Funds |
Retirement, LLC
|
Retirement Plan Administrator (TPA) Retirement Plan Consultants
|
RTD Financial Advisors
|
Pentegra
|
Retirement Plan Relationship Manager ERISA Services, Inc.
|
Retirement, LLC
|
EPIC Retirement Plan Services
|
Kentucky Trust Company
|
Administrator/Consultant (DC and DB) TPA Professionals |
Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Associate Attorney Polsinelli PC
|
EPIC: TPA/DPS
|
Retirement Plan Legal Specialist Pentegra
|
Farmer & Betts, Inc.
|
Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation Associate Attorney Verrill
|
Retirement Plan Documents Specialist Loren D. Stark Company
|
Jr Retirement Plan Administrator/ Administrative Assistant Hochheiser Deutsch & Co, Inc.
|
Nicholas Pension Consultants
|
Free Newsletters
“BenefitsLink continues to be the most valuable resource we have at the firm.”
-- An attorney subscriber
 |    |
<< Previous news item | Next news item >>
| 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  [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 link above). |
| An important word about authorship: BenefitsLink® is providing a hypertext link to the item shown above, but is not the author of the item (unless otherwise specified). |
