ruling that the term “receives” is ambiguous and applying the rule of contra proferentem to adopt an interpretation most favorable to the insured
How later courts described this case
- ruling that the term “receives” is ambiguous and applying the rule of contra proferentem to adopt an interpretation most favorable to the insured
- noting that " 'the interest rate prescribed for post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 is appropriate *1032 for fixing the rate of pre-judgment interest’ ” (citations omitted)
- Generally, the interest rate prescribed for post-judgment interest by 28 U.S.C. § 1961 is the proper rate for prejudgment interest unless the court finds by substantial evidence that the equities of the action require a different rate.
- "A district court may award prejudgment interest on an award of ERISA benefits at its discretion.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOONAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
By the principles of law distinguishing trusteeship and agency, Vanguard was an agent, not a trustee. The restrictions on Vanguard’s power of investment imposed by the Internal Revenue Code 26 U.S.C. § 408 (a), however, infringe on Blankenship’s control as does the provision in the same statute that the balance of his account be nonforfeitable. If Vanguard were his agent, Blankenship would be free to invest the account as he chose, and he could not confer upon it a nonforfeitable status. Because of these peculiarities of the position of Vanguard — peculiarities owed to the Internal Revenue Code — Vanguard does not completely meet the criteria of agency, and, therefore, Blankenship prevails in this case.