- 8 -
Courts have interpreted the language of employee benefit
plans using principles of contract and trust law. See Firestone
Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 110-115 (1989); Chiles
v. Ceridian Corp., 95 F.3d 1505, 1511 (10th Cir. 1996); Haley v.
Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 77 F.3d 84, 88-89 (4th Cir. 1996);
Kemmerer v. ICI Americas, Inc., 70 F.3d 281, 288 (3d Cir. 1995);
Sayers v. Rochester Tel. Corp., 7 F.3d 1091, 1094-1095 (2d Cir.
1993); Pizzuti v. Polaroid Corp., 985 F.2d 13, 14 (1st Cir.
1993).
Language used in employee benefit plans is generally
interpreted according to its common and ordinary meaning, and an
effort is made to give meaning to all language of the plans.
Chiles v. Ceridian Corp., supra; Sayers v. Rochester Tel. Corp.,
supra at 1094-1095.
Where employee benefit plans do not specifically provide
trustees or plan administrators with discretionary power to
interpret plan provisions and where the plans do not provide that
trustees' and administrators' decisions should be given
deference, interpretations given to the language of plans by
trustees or administrators are not entitled to any particular
deference. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, supra at 111-
112; Masella v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Conn., Inc., 936 F.2d
98, 103 (2d Cir. 1991).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011