holding arbitrary and capricious standard applicable given plan’s terms that “[fji-nal decisions shall be made by the Company as to the interpretation and application of this policy,” and that fiduciary is granted “discretionary authority ... [to] construe the terms of the plan.”
How later courts described this case
- holding arbitrary and capricious standard applicable given plan’s terms that “[fji-nal decisions shall be made by the Company as to the interpretation and application of this policy,” and that fiduciary is granted “discretionary authority ... [to] construe the terms of the plan.”
- holding arbitrary and capricious standard applicable given plan's terms that "[f]inal decisions shall be made by the Company as to the interpretation and application of this policy," and that fiduciary is granted "discretionary authority ... [to] construe the terms of the plan."
- explaining that "the most important factor to weigh is the language of the plan itself as known by the employees, or as the employees should have known"
- holding that the most important factor in considering whether denial of benefits was arbitrary and capricious is the language of the plan
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RALPH B. GUY, Jr., Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in that portion of Judge Martin’s opinion that directs that this matter be remanded to the district court. In my opinion, the record was not adequately developed below, and this matter was not appropriate for disposition by summary judgment in favor of either party. Judge Nelson would decide this case in favor of the defendant, and Judge Martin appears to be stopping just short of deciding it for the plaintiffs. I am not comfortable in joining either view at this time.