“both parties have offered plausible interpretations of the agreement drawn from the contractual language itself [which] demonstrates that the provision is ambiguous. Neither of the two proffered interpretations is frivolous nor unreasonable on its face, and inquiry should be permitted into extrinsic circumstances.”
How later courts described this case
- “both parties have offered plausible interpretations of the agreement drawn from the contractual language itself [which] demonstrates that the provision is ambiguous. Neither of the two proffered interpretations is frivolous nor unreasonable on its face, and inquiry should be permitted into extrinsic circumstances.”
- reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the union with respect to its breach of ERISA fiduciary duty claim
- No. 88-3145, 1989 WL 63871, unpublished per curiam
- “[Bjoth parties have offered plausible interpretations of the agreement drawn from the contractual language itself [which] demonstrates that the provision is ambiguous.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
876 F.2d 894
Allard (David W., Jr.)
v.
Delorean (John Z.), Douglas Elliman Gibbons & Ives, Javits
(Eric M.), Javits & Javits, Javits, Hinckley, Rabin &
Engler, Kimmerly (Thomas W.), Thomas W. Kimmerly, P.C., 834
Fifth Avenue Corp., Board of Directors of 834 Fifth Ave.
Corp., Rockefeller (Laurance), Frye (Clayton W., Jr.),
Johnson (Robert, IV, Anne), Petrie (Carroll), Taubman (A.
Alfred), Marchessini (Alexander), Brown Harris Stevens,
Inc., Miller (William), Eddy (John P.B.)
NO. 88-1275
United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.
JUN 14, 1989
1
Appeal From: E.D.Mich.
2
AFFIRMED.