Case Title: Viles v. VT State Colleges

Citation: 168 Vt. 459, 724 A.2d 448

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1998-11-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
Viles v. VT State Colleges  (97-306); 168 Vt. 459; 724 A.2d 448

[Filed 13-Nov-1998]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 No. 97-306

  Perry Viles	                                Supreme Court

                                                On Appeal from
       v.		                        District Court of Vermont,
                                                Unit No. 3, Caledonia Circuit

  Vermont State Colleges	                June Term, 1998

       Brian L. Burgess, J.

       William P. Neylon and Lisa A. Warren of Swainbank, Morrissette &
  Neylon, St. Johnsbury, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

       Stanley Carpenter, Waterbury, and Nicholas DiGiovanni and Anne M.
  Kinnane of Morgan, Brown & Joy, Boston, Massachusetts, for
  Defendant-Appellee.

       PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       DOOLEY, J.   Plaintiff Perry Viles appeals from a decision of the
  Caledonia Superior Court holding that defendant, Vermont State Colleges, is
  not obligated by its employee benefits policies to provide health insurance
  coverage to plaintiff's wife.  We hold that the applicable section of
  defendant's employee handbook is ambiguous and must, therefore, be
  construed to provide the benefits plaintiff seeks.  We reverse.

       After employment with Lyndon State Colleges for over ten years, most
  recently as special assistant to the president, plaintiff retired in 1993. 
  At the time he retired, plaintiff was over 60 years of age and was a
  widower.  In 1995, he remarried and sought health insurance benefits for
  his spouse, Barbara Viles, pursuant to defendant's Personnel Handbook for
  Administrators and Administrative Staff.  The applicable section on
  "Benefits After Retirement" provides:

     Upon retirement at age 55 and above with at least twenty (20)
     years of continuous service, or age 58 and above with at least 
     fifteen (15) years of continuous service, or age 60 with at least ten
     
  

     (10) years of continuous service, or age 65 and above
     with at least five (5) years of continuous service, an employee shall
     receive medical and dental insurance for self and spouse for the rest 
     of their respective lives and for his/her family for one (1) year.

  Defendant denied him benefits on the basis that the personnel section
  authorizes provision of health insurance benefits to a spouse only if the
  retiree had a spouse on the date of retirement.

       Plaintiff brought this declaratory judgment action claiming that
  Barbara Viles was entitled to health insurance coverage under the policy. 
  Following cross motions for summary judgment, the Caledonia Superior Court
  held for defendant reasoning that the language of the provision
  unambiguously vests entitlement to health insurance at time of retirement. 
  Thus, the court held that, if the employee has no spouse at time of
  retirement, subsequent spouses are not entitled to health insurance under
  the policy.	On appeal, plaintiff argues that the handbook provision is
  ambiguous and the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of coverage.

       This case was decided on summary judgment motions.  Summary judgment
  is appropriate if the submissions before the court show that there is no
  genuine issue as to any material fact and a party is entitled to judgment
  as a matter of law.  See V.R.C.P. 56(c)(3); Miller v. Town of West Windsor,
  ___ Vt. ___, ___,