Pension Protection Act Blog

With most cases involving a conflict between the plan document and the Summary Plan Description (SPD), it is the plaintiff who is arguing that the language in the SPD should apply instead of the language in the plan document. Not so for a case decided by the 6th Circuit today. In Kolpacke v. CSX Pension Plan, No. 07-1959 (CA6, May 21, 2008), the 6th Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in CSX’s favor, stating that Kolpacke had failed to show that CSX had arbitrarily and capriciously applied the terms of the pension plan in calculating Kolpacke’s estimated benefits. Unlike most ERISA opinions from the 6th Circuit, the Court’s entire opinion is two paragraphs long and does not provide any detail.

It is the underlying opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan which provides the details. I am indebted to Rob Hoskins, ERISA attorney extraordinaire and founder ERISAboard.com - the hot new website exclusively for ERISA attorneys, for a copy of the district court’s opinion. It is in that opinion that the district court discusses the conflict between the plan document and the SPD.

The SPD provided that the plaintiff’s benefit under the plan would be reduced by railroad retirement benefits, which are the railroad industry’s version of social security benefits. The participant argued that the plan document did not provide for this reduction in benefits, thus the conflict. Plaintiff also argued that CSX was estopped from reducing his benefits by an offset for railroad retirement because CSX provided him with a letter stating that his benefit had already been offset for railroad retirement and would be reduced no further. 9 days after the participant elected to retire, CSX corrected this mistake.

The district court granted summary judgment to CSX. Even though the benefit calculation made according the language in the SPD provided less benefits to the participant than the language in the plan document, the participant did not prevail. In the opinion, the district court cited to Anderson v. Chrysler Corp., 99 F.3d 846 (7th Cir. 1996) for the proposition that where the plan itself gives the employee greater benefits and protection, it should control.

Technorati Tags: Pension Protection Act, ppa, CSX, Kolpacke, 6th Circuit, railroad retirement, Rob Hoskins, Erisaboard.com, ERISA