# Robert D. Sprague, Plaintiffs-Appellees/cross-Appellants v. General Motors Corporation, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee > Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · January 7, 1998 · 133 F.3d 388 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9490872 ## Case - **Full name:** Robert D. SPRAGUE, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - **Decided:** January 7, 1998 - **Citations:** 133 F.3d 388; 39 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 788; 21 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2267; 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 84 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Merritt - **Judges:** Lively, Martin, -Lively, Merritt, Nelson, Ryan, Boggs, Norris, Suhrheinrich, Siler, Batchelder, Daughtrey, Moore, Cole - **Cited by:** 712 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9490872 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that class certification was inappropriate as to the claims of a class of early retirees for lifetime health benefits based on theories of bilateral contract and estoppel where each retiree’s alleged bilateral contract depended on which documents the retiree might have… - holding defendant did not breach its fiduciary duty when it “did not tell the early retirees at every possible opportunity that which it had told them many times before—namely, that the terms of the plan were subject to change.” A company need not “begin every communication to… - stating that the plan, under which early retirees of General Motor Corporation claimed to be entitled to health care benefits for life at no cost, was a welfare plan regulated by ERISA and that the plan was a bilateral contract between GM and “each early retiree to vest health… - holding that the principle that the terms of the SPD control when they conflict with the terms of the underlying plan' does not apply when the SPD is merely silent on an issue because “[a]n omission from the summary plan description does not, by negative implication, alter the… - holding that the principle that the terms of the SPD control when they conflict with the terms of the underlying plan does not apply when the SPD is merely silent on an issue because "[a]n omission from the summary plan description does not, by negative implication, alter the … ## Opinion text MERRITT, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I agree with two conclusions found in Judge Nelson’s opinion for the en banc court: (1) that District Judge Feikens was correct in declining to certify the 34,000 general retirees as a class because they were on notice that General Motors could always modify their health benefits, even after retirement; and (2) that there are too many differences in the various contractual arrangements and representations made to individual early retirees to merit class certification and unified treatment. I do not agree, however, that the actions of the named plaintiffs who were early retirees should be dismissed. I agree with that portion of Chief Judge Martin’s dissenting opinion that calls for a remand of this portion of the case to the District- Court for consideration of the individual eases of the named plaintiffs on the merits. It appears that at least some of the early retirees had,vested lifetime benefits at the time of retirement unencumbered by any reservation by GM that it retained the right to modify. These named plaintiffs should not be summarily thrown out of court merely because the class actions fail. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9490872. Public record. Not legal advice.