Benito T. PEREZ, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
1DissentBoggs, Circuit Judge
This ease involves a straight-forward interpretation of the meaning of words. The Supreme Court has set out the standard in Firestone: does the document grant discretion to the plan administrator in making decisions under the plan? See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989). Since the grant must be a clear and affirmative one, as the court correctly holds, see Majority Opinion at 555-556, it seems to me that the words at issue here, furnish “written proof,” do not grant such discretion. I therefore respectfully dissent.
I
The court’s…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Connie M. Miller v. Metropolitan Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1991
- Christine M. Donato v. Metropolitan Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
- Russell Wulf and Ronald Rentschler v. Quantum Chemical Corporation Quantum Employee Stock Ownership Plan for Hourly Represented EmployeesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994
- 20 Employee Benefits Cas. 1375, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4487, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7305, Pens. Plan Guide P 23921c Gloria Snow v. Standard Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.