Wagner Logo

Follow us on Twitter View our profile on LinkedIn Like us on Facebook 

 

 

 

The Wagner Law Group

The Wagner Law Group is a nationally recognized practice in the areas of ERISA and employee benefits, estate planning, employment, labor and human resources and investment management.

 

Established in 1996, The Wagner Law Group is dedicated to the highest standards of integrity, excellence and thought leadership and is considered to be amongst the nation's premier ERISA and employee benefits law firms. The firm has seven offices across the country, providing unparalleled legal advice to its clients, including large, small and nonprofit corporations as well as individuals and government entities worldwide. The Wagner Law Group's 34 attorneys, senior benefits consultant and five paralegals combine many years of experience in their fields of practice with a variety of backgrounds. Seven of the attorneys are AV-rated by Martindale-Hubbell and six are Fellows of the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, an invitation-only organization of nationally recognized employee benefits lawyers.  Seven of the firm's attorneys have been named to the prestigious Super Lawyers list for 2017, which highlights outstanding lawyers based on a rigorous selection process.

 

 

 

Contact Info

The Wagner Law Group

 

  Integrity | Excellence

  

Boston 

Tel: (617) 357-5200 

Fax: (617) 357-5250 

99 Summer Street 

13th Floor

Boston, MA 02110

 

Washington, D.C.

Tel: (202) 969-2800

 

Fax: (202) 969-2568

 800 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Suite 810

Washington, D.C. 20006

 

Chicago

Tel: (847) 990-9034

Fax: (847) 557-1312

190 South LaSalle Street

Suite 2100

Chicago, IL 60603

 

  

Palm Beach Gardens 

Tel: (561) 293-3590
Fax: (561) 293-3591
7108 Fairway Drive
Suite 125
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418

   

Tampa

Tel: (813) 603-2959

Fax: (813) 603-2961

101 East Kennedy Boulevard

Suite 2140
Tampa, FL  33602 

  

San Francisco

Tel: (415) 625-0002

Fax: (415) 358-8300

300 Montgomery Street

Suite 600

San Francisco, CA 94104

  

St. Louis

Tel: (314) 236-0065

Fax: (314) 236-5743
25 W. Moody Avenue
St. Louis, MO  63119 

 

Lincoln, MA

Tel: (617) 532-8080

Fax: (617) 532-9090

55 Old Bedford Road

Lincoln, MA 01773

 

 

www.wagnerlawgroup.com

 

 

 

Sixth Circuit Decision Highlights Importance of Firestone Language for Plan Interpretation 

June 6, 2018

 

 

 

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Clemons v. Norton Healthcare Retirement Plan, held that certain doctrines of contract interpretation did not apply to resolve ambiguities in an ERISA plan once a court has determined that the plan document grants the administrator broad discretion to interpret its terms.

Law. In Firestone Tire and Rubber v. Bruch, the Supreme Court held that when an ERISA plan contains language granting the administrator discretion to construe the terms of the plan, a reviewing court should defer to any interpretation adopted by the administrator that is not arbitrary and capricious. In response to Firestone, many plan sponsors have now incorporated language into their ERISA plan documents that explicitly grant the plan administrator authority to interpret the plan's provisions.

Facts. In Clemons, a group of early retirees under the defendant's employee benefit plan disagreed with the plan administrator's calculation of benefits and filed a class-action lawsuit seeking to have their benefits recalculated under their alternative interpretation of the plan document. The plan document contained Firestone language granting the plan administrator discretion to interpret the terms of the plan.

District Court. The district court agreed with the plaintiffs and ordered the defendants to recalculate the benefits. Specifically, the district court held that the plan provision at issue was sufficiently free from ambiguity such that it rendered the plan administrator's interpretation arbitrary and capricious under the Firestone standard.

The court also held that common law doctrine of contra proferentum (i.e., a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that where a term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be one that works against the interest of the drafting party) also applied in the instant case, thereby allowing the retirees' alternative interpretation.

In turn, the defendant appealed the district court's adverse determination to the Sixth Circuit.

Sixth Circuit. After reviewing the matter, the Sixth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision, holding that that the plan's Firestone language overrode (and was "inherently incompatible" with) the doctrine of contra proferentum. In particular, the Sixth Circuit rejected the district court's notion of relying on the doctrine of contra proferentum to mitigate Firestone deference. The Sixth Circuit noted that once a reviewing court determines that a plan contains Firestone language, it should defer to the plan administrator's interpretation of the plan so long as it is not arbitrary and capricious.

Employer Takeaway. Clemons is a reminder that it is to the plan sponsor's advantage to include Firestone language in their plan documents because doing so will help prevent ambiguous plan terms from being construed against them.

 

 

 

This Newsletter is protected by copyright. Material appearing herein may be reproduced with appropriate credit.

 

This Newsletter is provided for information purposes by The Wagner Law Group to clients and others who may be interested in the subject matter, and may not be relied upon as specific legal advice.  This material is not to be construed as legal advice or legal opinions on specific facts. Under the Rules of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, this material may be considered advertising.