Coronavirus (COVID-19) News and Resources
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Webcasts
Subscribe to Free Daily Newsletters
Post a Job

Featured Jobs

Enrolled Actuary
Loren D. Stark Company logo
Loren D. Stark Company
(Telecommute)
ESOP Valuation Writer
Unique ESOP Valuation Provider
(Telecommute)

Free Daily News and Jobs

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

-- An attorney subscriber

Get the BenefitsLink app LinkedIn
Twitter
Facebook

<< Previous news item   |   Next news item >>



Text of Federal District Court Opinion: Plaintiff Not Entitled to Benefit Described on Distribution Election Form, Where Contrary to Plan Document
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Link to more items from this source
Nov. 2, 2014
"[Plaintiff] argues that the Pension Election Documents should control over the Plan, given the contradictory language and her reliance on the summary documents. In doing so, she relies on a [2003] decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [('Burstein')] ... Conversely, Defendant rests its case on the Plan language, citing to a recent Supreme Court case, Cigna Corp. v. Amara ... which, inter alia, held that disclosures set forth in the SPD could not be enforced pursuant to ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B) as terms of the plan itself.... Burstein is no longer good law on the issue of which document controls the availability of benefits, given the Supreme Court's ensuing decision in Cigna." [Keiser v. Conagra Foods, Inc., No.4:13-cv-00159 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 27, 2014)]

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).
© 2020 BenefitsLink.com, Inc.