## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12

- 1995 D ONAL D J. T OMPKI NS,

Plai nt i f f / Count e r - D e

f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant,
v. C ENTRAL L ABO RERS ’ P EN S I ON F UND , D efend a nt/C o un ter-P la intif f-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 4:09- cv-004004

— Sara D arrow, Judge .
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 31, 2012

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 13, 2013

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Ch i e f Judg e, a nd W ILLIAM S an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges. W I L L I A MS, Cir cuitJudg e . The Centr alLabor er s’ Pensi on Fu nd ( th e “Fu nd ”) term inated D o na ld J. Tom p kins’s dis a b i l i t y b e ne f i t s b e c a us e he b e c am e e m plo yed full -t im e and , therefore, no longe r had a “total and perm anent disabi l i ty. ” Tom pki ns, wh o bro ught thi s a cti on2 N o. 12

- 1995 und erthe Em plo yee Reti re m ent Incom e Secur i ty A ct ( “ E R I S A” ) , 2 9 U. S
. C
. § § 1 0 0 1 e t s e q . , c h a l l e n g e s th e Fu nd ’s int erp retation o f its definition of “tota l an d perm anent di sabi l i ty. ” The F und , wh i ch ackn ow ledges that th e r el evantdefi ni ti on pro vi si on i s a m bi guous, ar gues th ati ts i nt er pr et at i o n i s en ti tl ed to de fer en ce unde r the arbi tr ar y- and-capr i ci ous s tandard o fr evi ew . W e a gr ee. Des pi te T o m pk i ns ’ s ar g um en ts t o the c o nt r ar y, the F und b as ed i ts de ci si o n t o t er m i na te hi s be ne fi ts o n a r ea so nabl e i nt er pr et at i o n o fthe de fi ni ti o n pr o vi si o n. And be ca us e no ne o fTom pk i ns ’ s r emai ni nga r g um en ts ch all en ging th at d ecision ha s m e r it, w e affirm the di str i c t cour t’ s deci si on g ra nti ng sum m ar y j ud gm en t in the Fu nd ’s f avor.

I . B AC KGR OUND T o m p kin s, w h o b eg an w or kin g a s a lab or er in Illin ois i n 197 8, i s a part i ci pant in t h e Fund , a not- f or - profi t, m ul ti

- empl o y erpe ns i o n fund e st ab l i sh ed an d a dm i ni ste re d pu rs uant to ERIS A
. I n J uly19 99, Tom p kins fi l ed ana p p l i c a t i o n f o r a d i s a b i l i t y p e n s i o n fr o m th e F und base d on chr oni c as thm ati c bro n c h i ti s, wh i ch he a tt r ibu t e d t o wo r k i n gwi th c e me n td u s tf o r t we n t y - t wo y ea r s. At thatt i m e th e F und was a dm i ni st er ed pur su an t to the S um m ar y Pl an Descr i pti on, Revi sed and Effecti ve J uly 1 , 1 995 ( “Revi sed S PD ”) and the Restat ed Pl an Rules and Regula ti ons- A m ended a nd Restat ed E ffecti ve October1, 19 94 ( “Fi rs t Res ta te d Pla n”)
. The Fund did not m ai l o r othe rwis e pr ovi de the Fi rs t Res tat ed Pl an to To m pk i ns o r an y o th er F und par ti ci pan ts , butTompki nsN o. 12

- 1995 3 d id rec eiv e a co p y of th e Re vis ed SP D , w h ich p ro vid ed in re l evantpartthat“[ d]i sabi l i ty benefi ts ar e payabl e for l i fe, a ss um i ng , ofc o ur se , tha t y o u r emai n t o ta l l y a nd perm anentl y di sabl ed. ” The Revi sed S PD al so refer re d parti ci pants to the provi si ons ofthe Fi rs t Res tat ed Pl an, wh i ch defi ned “to taland perm anent di sa b i l i ty” and explain ed w hen the Fund coul d ter m i nate or suspend benefi ts. A m endm ent 7 to the Fi rs t Restat ed Pla n , w hi ch b ec am e e ffec tiv e in N ov em b er 19 98 , in c l u d e d th e fo ll o wi ngpr o vi si o n: A Tota l and Per m anent Di sab ilityshal l m ean that th e E m p loy ee is to ta lly an d p er m an en tly u n a b le as a r esul t o fbo dilyi nj ury ordi sea se to engag e i n any furthe r em plo ym ent o r gainfulpursui t a s a Labo re r orotherB uil ding Trades Crafts em plo ym ent in the const ructi on i nd ustr y fo r re m unerati on or pro fi t, r ega rdl ess o fthe am ount, o r unab l e t o e ng a g e i n fur the r e mpl o y men to r g ain fu l p u r s u i to fn o n - L a b o r e r o r o th e r n o nBu i l ding Trades Crafts em plo ym ent f or wh i ch the e mpl o y men ti s c o ns i de r e d ful l

- t i me a nd a pri m ar y s ourc e o fi ncom e. Fo r such non- Laborer oro thernon- Bu i l ding Trades Crafts em plo ym ent, provi ded a physi ci an, se l ecte d by th e t rust ees , consi ders the disabi l i ty to be totaland per m anent, th e P ar ti c i p an t m ay ea rn u p to $1 4,0 00 p er ca len dary ea r i n n o n- Lab o r ero r o th erno n- Bui l d in g Trades Crafts em plo ym en t and be consi dered tot al l y a nd per m anentl y di sabl ed f orp u rpos es4 N o. 12

- 1995 ofS ecti on 3. 10. Such disabi l i ty m ust be co nsi dered to ta l a nd pe r m an en t an d wi l l c o nt i nue dur i ng th e r emai nde r o fthe Pa r ti ci pan t’ s l if e. The tr ustee s sh al l be the fulland fi nal j ud ges o fTota l and Perm anent D i sabi l i ty and ofenti tl em ent t o a D isabil ity Pen sion he reu nd er. The F und di d no t pr o vi de Am en dm en t 7 to To m pk i ns orany othe r pla n part i ci pant. To m pk i ns ’ s appl i ca ti o n f o r a di sabi l i type ns i o n incl ude d a n ack no wl edg m en t th athe a g r ee d t o b e bo und bya l l the Fund’ s r ul es a nd r egul at i o ns , a l th o ug h h e did notinquir e about thos e r ule s o r m ake any eff or t t o fi n d out w ha t the y w ere at the tim e he ap p li ed or before fi l i ng thi s l aw sui t. In A u gust 1999 , the Fund app ro ved Tom pki ns f or“t ota l and perm anent di sabi l i ty” bene fi ts i n the am ount o f$2 , 115. 43 per m on th , r etr oac ti ve to Jan u ar y 1 , 199 9
. T h e firs t t im e T om p kin s re c eiv ed h is m o nthl y be ne fi t, he was r equi r ed to sign a Re ti r ement D e c l a r a t i o n th a tp r o v i d e d n o t i c e o fd i s q u a l i fy i n ge mpl o y m en t f o r pl anpa r ti ci p an ts r ec ei vingr eti r ement pen si o ns b utdi d no t i nc l ude the r ul es a nd r egul at i o ns speci fi c to di sabi l i ty pensi oner s. Tom pki n s re cei ved m onthl y di sabi l i ty benefi ts thro ugh M ay 20 07. I n J une, the Fund sent hi m a l ett er su sp en d in g h is d isa b ility p en sio n, claim in g t h at h is full

- ti m e e m plo ym ent a t W i l m an Constr ucti on i n 200 5 and 2006 l ed the Fund “to believe t hat [ he] no l onge r [ m et] the Fund’s defi ni ti on o f ‘totaland perm anent di sab i l i ty. ’ ” The F und fo und tha t To m pk i ns b eg anwor k i ng f or ty hours per w eekbeg i nnin g i n J uly20 05 and ear nedN o. 12

- 1995 5 $10, 550 that yea r and $22, 100 i n 200 6. The l ett er i nfo rm ed Tom pki ns thath e had been over pai d $48, 654. 89 i n benefi ts f ro m J uly20 05 thro ugh M ay 2007and that the F und would se ek to re cove r that am ount thro ugh i ts re cove rypro cess . T he Fu n d b ased i ts d ecision to term inate T om p kins’s disabi lity b enefi ts on S ecti on 3
. 10’ s defi ni ti on o f“t ota l and perm an en t di sabi l i ty. ” Tom pki ns, wh o disputed th e F und’ s i nt er pr et at i o n o fthe de fi ni ti on, ap pea l ed th e F und’ s dec i si o n. He made thr ee a r g um en ts
. F i r st, he ass er ted thathi s 2 005 w or k di d n ot v iol ate S ecti on 3
. 10 beca us e the wo r kwa s “ no n- l a b o r e r ” e mpl o y men tthat ea r ne d hi m l es s th an$ 14, 00 0. H e a l so a r g ue d tha t th e o ve r pay m en t pr o vi si o ns s ho ul d o nl y a ppl y once he ear ned $14, 000 f orthe year. A nd fi nal l y, he a sse rt ed th at h e w as n ot n ot ified of th e req u ire m en t to r e m a in “to tal l y a nd per m anentl y di sabl ed” to co ntin u e r ecei vi ng di sabi l i ty benefi ts. A fte r th e F u n d u n an im ou sly d en i e d h is a p p ea l in 20 08 , To m p kin s filed a c om p lain t in fed er al c ou rt . In an am ende d c om pla i nt, he a l l ege d: the F und co ntro
ve rt ed th e p lain m ea n in g of t h e P lan by fail i n g t o a p p ly the $ 14, 000 provi si on t o hi s full

- ti m e e m plo ym en t as a non- l abor er ; the Fund b re ach ed i ts fi du ci ar y duty by f ai l i ng to pro vi de hi m with pr opern ot i ce o fthe rul es gov er ni ng suspensi on o fhi s be nefi ts; and the Fund vi ol at ed ERI S A’s a nt i- cutb ac kr ul e. The F und fi l ed a co unter cl ai m f or fr audu l ent c oncea l m ent, al l eging tha t Tom pki ns hi d his full

- ti m e e m plo ym ent b etw een 2005 and 2007. Both par ti es fi l ed m oti ons f orsum m ar y j ud g-6 N o. 12

- 1995

m ent. The di str i ct c ourt g ra nted the Fund’s m oti on o n al l o f To mpk i ns ’ s c l a i ms a nd he l d a t wo - da y b e nc h tr i al on th e Fun d ’s coun terclaim

. A fter find ing tha t the re was no e vi den ce tha t To m pk i ns i nt en ded to dec ei ve the Fu nd i nt o pa y i ng hi m b e ne fi t s , the c o ur t r ul e d i n f avo r o fTo m pk i ns o n the Fund’ s co unt er cl ai m . To m pk i ns appe al s th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s su m m ar y j udg m en t dec i si o ns on h is c laim s t h at th e F u n d co n tr ov er te d th e p lain m eani ng o fS ecti on 3
. 10 and bre ached i ts fi du ci ar y duty.

II. A N A L Y S IS W e re vie w a d ist ric t c ou rt ’s s u m m ar y jud gm en t d ec isio n s d e n ov o . Edwards v. Br iggs & St r at t on Ret
. Pla n , 63 9 F.3d 355, 359 (7th Cir. 2011). W he n w e con side r a d i s t r i c tc o u r td e c i s i o n f o l l o win g c r o s s - mo t i o n s f o r s u mm ar y j ud gm ent, “ our re vi ew o fthe re cor d requi re s that w e co nstr u e alli nfe re nces i n f avo r ofthe party ag ain stw h om th e m o t i o n u n d er co n sid er at ion is m ade. ” He ndr i cks - Robi ns on v. E xc el Corp. , 15 4 F
. 3d 685, 692 (7th Cir. 1998).

A . Th e Arbit r ary- and - Capri ci ous Sta nd ar d A pp l i es A di str i ct c ourtr evi ew s the deni alo f E RI SA benefi ts de novo , “ u nl ess the benefi t pl an gi ves the a dm i ni str ato r o r fidu ciary d iscreti o na r y a utho r i tyt o de te r m i ne el i g ibi l i tyf o r b en efi ts o r t o c o ns tru e the t er m s o fthe pla n. ” Fires tone Tire & RubberCo
. v. Bruch , 48 9 U.S
. 10 1, 11 5 ( 1989 )
. W hen t h e ter m s o fa pla n prov i de f orsuch di scr eti on, j ud i ci alr evie w o fthe adm i ni str ato r’ s deci si onN o. 12

- 1995 7 i s l i mi t e d t o a n a rb i t r a ry - a nd

- c a pr i c i o us s t a nd a r d, u n d er w h ich an ad m in ist ra to r’s d ec isio n w ill b e u p h eld “as l ong as ( 1) i t i s pos sib le to o ffera re aso ned explanati on, bas ed on the ev i dence, f ora parti cul aro utcom e, ( 2) the deci si on i s ba sed o n a r eas onabl e e xplan atio n of re l evantpl an docum ents, o r ( 3) the adm i ni str ato r has bas ed i ts de ci si o n o n a c o ns i der at i o n o fthe r el ev an t f ac to r s that en co m pas s th e i m po r ta nta spe ct s o fthe problem .” He s s v. Har t f or d L i f e& Acc i de ntIns . Co. , 274 F.3d 456 ( 7th Cir. 2004) (int erna l qu otation om itted ). T he p a r t ies agree that the P lan gran ts th e Fun d ’s tr u st ee s d isc re tio n ar y a u th or ity to int er p re t a n d ap p ly i ts ter m s. Tom pki ns, however, r el ies o n re cent l anguage f r o m th e Su p re m e C ou rtto arg u e t h at th e a rb itr ar y- and-capr i ci ous s tandard o fr eview sho uld not appl y . I n C o nk rig h t v . From m ert, the Court sta ted that “[u ]n d e r tru st law , a truste e m ay be stripp ed of d eferen c e w h en h e d oe s n otex er c ise h is d isc re tio n h on es tly and f ai rl y. ” 130 S. Ct. 1640 , 1651 ( 2010 ) ( i nter nal qu ot ation m arks om itted ). T om p kins fi rs t sug gests that a height en ed stan d ard of r eview i s w arran ted un d er C onk right be ca use th e F und a ct ed i n b ad f ai thb y f ai l i ngt o di sc l o se thr ee do cum en ts t o hi m : a n int erna l me m o s en t i n 1 99 7 f r o m o ne ofthe Fund’s c onsul tants to an a tto rneyst ating that the generalco nsensus was that the defi ni ti on o f“t ota l and perm anent di sabi l i ty” was to o re stricti ve; a 1997 l ett erse nt fro m the sam e co nsul tant to an a tt or ney descr ibi ng an am endm ent t o the pl an thatwould al l ow a di sabl ed pers on to e ar n up to $ 14, 000 i n non- const ruc-8 N o. 12

- 1995 ti on workand continue to be el i gibl e fordi sabi l i ty b en efi ts; and a pr opose d

—but notadopted

— 2005 draft amendmentt o the pl antha t co ns i der ed i nc o r po r at i ng l anguage thatTom pki ns ar gues w oul d have o nl y b een necess ar y i f hi s i nter preta ti on of the $14, 000 provi si on w er e a ccurat e. Tom pki ns a l l ege s that be cause these docum ents supp or t hi s v i ew thatthe $14, 000 provi si on appli ed to p ar t-ti m e a nd full-tim e w or k in non- l abor er em plo ym ent, the Fund a cted i n bad f ai th b y not disc l osing the m to hi m p riorto o r du ring hi s Ap ri l 20 08 appeal hear i ng. Tom pki ns’ s bad-f ai th ar gum ent i s m er i tl ess . A fteri ts advers e be nefi t t er m i nati on, the Fu n d was re quir ed to provi de Tom pki ns with c opi es of“docu m en ts, r eco rds, and otheri nfo rm at ion r el evantto [ hi s] cl ai m f orbene

fits .” 29 C .F.R . § 25 60 .50 3-1 (j )(3) . A n d info rm at ion is “r el ev an t” i fi t: “ ( i ) [ w]a s r el i ed up o n in mak i ngthe b e ne fi tde t e r mi na t i o n; ( i i ) [ w] a s s ub mi tte d, c o ns i de r e d, or genera ted i n th e cou rse of m aking t h e ben efi t d eterm i na ti o n . . . ; ( ii i ) [ d] emon st r at es c o m pl i an ce wi ththe adm i ni str ati ve proce sse s and s afeguar ds re quir ed

. . . in m aking the bene fi t dete rm i nati on; o r ( i v) [i] n the case ofa g r o up h e a l th pl a n o r a p l a n pr o v i di ngdi s a b i l i ty benefi ts, co nsti tutes a sta tem ent o fpol i cy orgui dance wi th r es pec t to th e pl an co nc erning th e den i ed tr ea tment opti on o r benefi t .
. . . ” Id. § 2 56 0. 503
. 1( m ) ( 8)
. To m pk i ns does not ar gue that a ny o fthe d oc u m ents he i denti fi es w er e r el evantunder anyof these bas es ofr el evance . Ra th er, he a ss er ts tha t th eywer e av ai l ab l e to th e tr u st ee s a t t h e t im e t h e y d e n ied h is b en efit s, an d , coll ec ti ve l y, the y s ho w tha t th e F und ac te d i n b ad f ai th

. ButN o. 12

- 1995 9

w e wil l notchar acte ri ze the F und as act i ng i n bad f ai thb ec au se i t di d no t di sc l o se do cument s i t had no obl i gat i on t o disc l ose . To m p k i ns ne xta tt empts t o c o nv i nc e us tha t th e F und is not ent itl ed to the arbitrary-an d -cap r ici ou s stan d ard ofr evi ew b ecause a confl i ct o fi nter esti nfl uenced i ts dec ision to te rm i nate hi s di sabi l i ty benefi ts. “[ A ] bene fi ts deter m i nati on bya pla n adm in istrat ori s a fi du ci ar y a ct, one i n w hi c h the adm i ni str ato r owes a speci alduty of loy alty to the pla n benefi ci ar i es. ” Raybo ur nev. Cigna L i f eIn s . Co
. o

f N. Y. , 700 F.3d 1 0 7 6 , 1 081-82 (7th Cir. 2012). And “ i fa p l a n g i v e s di s c r e t i o na r y a utho ri t y t o a n a dm inistrator or fidu c iary w ho is ope rating u nd er a confl i ct ofi nter est, thatco nfl i ct m ust be weighed .

. . . ” Id. at 1082
. W e hel d that a co nfl i cts anal ysis was not necess ar y when the pl an ati ssue w as a m ult i

- em plo yer w el f ar e p l a n who s e t r us t e e s c o ns i s t e d o fa n e qu al num bero funi on a nd em plo yerrep re senta ti ves, wh ose unio n re prese ntati ves had “ n o disc er nibl e incenti ve to rule against an ap p li can t,” and w h o s e tru stees w ere u n a n i m ou s in th eir ru lin g. M ann y v . Ce nt
. St at e s , Se
. an d Sw. Ar e as Pe ns i on & H eal t h & We l f areFu nds , 38 8 F
. 3d 241, 243 ( 7t h C ir. 20 04)
. Tom pki ns ar gues that a co nfl i cts an al y si s i s r equi r ed he r e be ca us e th e trus tees, who r ul ed una ni m o us l y a nd who a r e sp li t ev en l y a m o ng unio n and em plo yerr epres entat i ves, had an i ncenti ve to rul e a gainst hi m , as ev i denced by the f act that they evalu ated his clai m s at t he sam e tim e the y w ere co nc erne d abo utthe c osto fthe r et i r ementpl an . Tom pki ns’ s e vi dence ofa conflic t ofi nter esti s m i ni m al at best

— a 20 04 pr es en ta ti o n e m ai l ed bythe F und’ s co n-10 N o. 12

- 1995

s u l t a n tt o i t s e x e c u t i v e d i r e c t o r t ha t i n c l u d e d a r e c o mm en d ation th at th e Fu nd “en su re alldisab il ity pen sioners ar e di sabl ed” and a 2010 l ett erto part i ci pants and benefi ci ar i es gi vi ng not i ce that the decl i n e in fi nanci al m ar k et s putthe fund in “ en dan gered st atus ” f o r the 2009 plan year. W e hav e pr evi ousl y hel d that “ the a rbi trar yan d- ca pr i ci o us s ta nda r d m ayb e a r an g e, no t a po i nt ” an d that “[ t] here m ay be in effect a s lid i ng sc al e o fj ud i ci al r ev i ew o ft r us te es ’ de ci si o ns

— m o r e pen etr at i ngthe g r ea te r i s th e su spi ci o n o fpa r ti al i ty, les s pen et r at i ngthe sm alle r th at su s p i c i o n is.” V a n B o xel v . Journ a l C o . E m ps. P ensio n Trust, 8 36 F
. 2d 10 48 , 1 05 2- 53 ( 7th Ci r . 1 98 7)
. The su sp i c ion of p ar tia lity rais ed by T om p kin s’s cla im is negl i gibl e, i n partbec ause hi s e vi dence ei ther pre dated the t er m i nati on deci si on byf our yea rs o r d id notexi st u n til n ea rly tw o ye ar s a fte r it. Fu rt h er m or e, th er e is no r eas on t o suspect f ro m thatev id en ce

— orany othe r ev i den ce pr es en te d by Tom pk i ns

— that the F und was m o ti va te d to i m pr o per l y admi ni st er di sabi l i type ns i o ns ar ound the ti m e i t m ade t he deci si on t o ter m i nate his ben efi ts. T om p kins’s argu m en ts are si m p ly not suffi ci en t to c ha ng e the a ppl i cabl e st an dar d o fr ev i ew. The ra nge o fthe arbi tr ar y- and-capr i ci ous s tandard l eave s us m ore tha n e no ug h r o o m t o t ak e To m pk i ns ’ s co nc erns i nto acco unt w hile s ti l l gr anti ng the Fund’s tr ustee s the a pp ro pri ate am ount o fdefer ence. O n ap p eal, Tom p k ins argu es th at th e d istri ct cou rt sh o ul d ha ve a ddr es se d the c o nfl i ct
- o f

- i nt er es t i ss ue be f o r e r es po ndi ng to hi s cl ai m s th atthe F und was a ct i ngN o. 12

- 1995 11 i n bad f ai th. Thi s a rgum ent f ai l s forse ver alr eas ons. Fi rs t, Tom pki ns di d not a rgue f ora parti cul arse q u en ce ofr evi ew to the d i str i ct c ourt, and at sum m ar y j ud gm ent, he prese nted hi s bad-f ai th ar gum ent bef or e h is confl i ct
- o f

- i nt er es t o ne . Addi ti o na l l y, he pr o vi des no au th ority for his argum en t tha t the district cou rt shoul d have co nsi dered the al l eged confl i ct o fi nter est fi rs t. I nstea d, he m er el y c i tes l anguage st at in g that “ a m aj o r i tyo fthe S upr eme Co ur t J us ti ces c o ns i derthe potenti alco nfl i ct o fi nter esto fa pla n adm i ni str ato r ( or i ts sta ff ) se ri ous e nough to be gi ven w eig ht i n j ud i ci al re vi ew o fth e d eni alo fbene fi ts. ” M arrs v. M otorola, Inc. , 577 F. 3d 783, 78 8 (7th Cir

. 20 09)
. But M a rrs does nothi ng to advance Tom pki ns’ s ca use, since i t doe s not add re ss th e o rderi n w hi ch a dist ri ct c ourtm ust con side r argum e n t s relevant to the selection of a stand ar d ofr evi ew . A nd ul ti m ate l y, the or der m ake s no di ffer en ce . To m pk i ns ’ s ev i den ce o fb ad f ai tha nd co nfl i ctof i nt er es t i s i ns uffi ci en t to r ai se s us pi ci o ns ab o utthe t r us t e e s ’ a c t i o ns tha twa r r a ntr a i s i ngthe a pp lica b le s ta n d ar d of re vie w , reg ar d les s o f w h ich ch all enge w e co nsi der fi rs t.

B . Th e F und Di d No tAc ti n a n Arbi t r a ryo rC a pr i c i o us M ann er Th e parti es dispute the r el evance o fthe phrase “[ f ] or su ch ” in this exc erp t from Section 3.10 ( em p ha sis add ed ): A Tota l and Per m anent Di sabi l i ty sh all m ean that th e E m p loy ee is to ta lly an d p er m an en tly

. . . u n ab le to e ng ag e i n fur th ere m pl o y m en t o r g ainful12 N o. 12

- 1995 pu rs uito fnon- Labor er. . . em plo ym ent forwh i ch the e mpl o y men ti s c o ns i de r e d ful l

- t i me a nd a p rim ar y so u rc e of in c om e. For s uch n on -L ab or er . . . em plo ym ent,
. . . the Pa rt i ci pant m ay ear n up to $1 4,0 00 p er ca l e n d a r y ea r inn on -L ab or er . . . em p loym en t and be con side red totall y and perm an en tly d isa b led

. . . . U nd erTom pki ns’ s r eadi ng o fthi s pro vi si on, the “ f or such” pre f atory p hras e, wh i ch al l ows pensi oner s t o ear n up to $ 14, 000 thro ugh non- l abor erem p l oym ent, re fer s t o al l the l anguage thatp re cedes i t ( i
. e. , “no n-Labo re r em plo ym ent forwh i ch the em plo ym ent is consi dered full

- ti m e a nd a pri m ar y s ourc e o f in c om e”) , such that a per so n e m pl o y ed ful l

- ti m e ca n r emai n “ to ta l l y a nd p er m an en tly d isa b l ed ” if h e e ar n s le ss th an $1 4,0 00 . In contr as t, th e F und i nter prets the “f orsuch” l anguage as a gen er al refe re n c e to th e typ e of w or k allow e d in th e $ 14,000 p rovisi on su ch that a particip an t can earn up t o $ 14, 00 0 th roug h n o n- l ab o r ere m pl o y m en t an d r emai n “ to ta l l y a nd pe r m an en tly di sabl ed , ” buthe ca nno t do so i fhe i s empl o y ed as a l ab o r er . Acco r di ng to the F und , the $14, 000 provi sion d oes notaddress th e le n gt h of tim e t h e p en sio n er w or ks ; in st ea d , i t ar gues that the fi rs t s entence o fS ecti on 3
. 10 accom pl i s he s thi s b y p r o hib i t i nga “ t o t a l l y a nd p e r man e n t l y di s ab l e d ” p a r t i c i p a n tfr o m e n g a g i n gi n fu l l

- t i me n on -lab or er em p loy m en t. A c c or d in g t o th e F u n d , i t in te n d ed th e $ 14 ,00 0 p ro vis ion to allow p e rm an en tly disabl ed parti ci pants to m ai ntai n part
- ti m e e m plo ym ent without l osing the i r disabi l i ty pensi ons.N o. 12

- 1995 13 Tom pki ns as ks us to fi nd the m eani ng o fthe $14, 000 pr o vi si o n s o pl ain tha t th e F und a ct ed arbi tr aril y a nd capri ci ousl y w h en it r el i ed on i t t o ter m i nate hi s be nef i t s. Se eHe s s v. Har t

f or d L i f e& Acc i de ntIns . Co. , 2 74 F. 3d 4 5 6 , 4 6 1 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( “ I n s o me c a s e s , th e p l ai n l an gu a g e o r s t r uc t ur e o fthe p l a n o r s i mpl e co m m on sense wil l r equi re the court to p ro nounce an adm i ni str ato r ’ s det er m i na ti o n a rbi tr ar y a nd c apr i ci o us. ”)
. The Fu n d res pond s that the l anguage i n the $14, 000 prov ision is am biguou s. W e agree. T he re are certainly m ore effi ci ent ways to com m unica te the F und ’ s d efini ti on o f“ to ta l a nd pe r m anen t d is ab i l i ty
. ” And the “ f o r s uch ” pr ef ac e se ems u nne ce ss ar i l y c o nfus i ng . I n a dd i ti o n, Tom pkin s’ s nee d to re sor t t o extr i nsi c ev i dence, such a s the 1 9 9 7me mo a nd l e t t e r an d the 2 0 0 5 dr a fta men dme n t, a l s o s u g g e s t s th a tth e p r o v i s i o n i s , i n f a c t, a mbi g uou s. Se eSwabac k v. Am
. Inf o. Te ch s . Corp. , 10 3 F
. 3d 53 5, 54 1 (7 th C ir. 19 96 ) (w ith E R ISA p lan s, “[e ] x t r i n sic e v i d e n c e s h o u l d n o tb e u s e d w h e r e th e c o n t r a c ti s u n a mb i guous” ( quoti ng GC I U Emp ’ rR e t
. F u n d v . C h i
. Tr i b une Co. , 66 F. 3d 862, 86 5 ( 7th Ci r. 1 99 5))
. Because ofthat am bi gui ty , t he Fund’s i nter preta ti on o fthe $14, 000 provi si on i s e nti tl ed to defer ence. That inter preta ti on r est s o n a r ea so ne d unde r st an di ng o f “t o ta l an d pe rm anen t d i s ab i l i t y ” : o n c e a p a r t i c i p a n ti s e n g a g e d i n fu l l

- t i me em p loy m en t, r e g a r d les s o f h ow m u c h h e m ak es , he is no l o ng ert o ta l l y a nd pe r m an en tly di sabl ed. Give n the re quir ed l eve l of d eference to the F und ’ s inter preta
tio n of its ow n p lan , w e c an n otsa y t h e F u n d ac te d arb itr ar i l y or c ap ri ci ousl y when i t deni ed Tom pki ns be nefi ts f orthe ti m e he w as em plo yed full

- ti m e.14 N o. 12

- 1995 C . T h e Fu n d D id N ot Breach I ts Fid u ciary D u ty Breache s o ffi du ciary du ty occurwh en fi du ci ar i es
“ mi s l e a d p l a n p a r t i c i pa n t s o r mi s r e p r e s e n tth e t e r ms oradm i ni str ati on o fa pla n. ” A nw eiler v. A m . E lec. P o w er Serv . Corp. , 3 F. 3d 986, 991 (7th Cir. 1993). H ow ever, “w hi l e there i s a duty to pro vi de accur ate i nfo rm ati on und erERIS A , negl i gence i n fulfi l l i ng tha t duty i s no t acti onabl e. ” Va l l o n e v . CNA F i n . Corp. , 375 F. 3d 623, 64 2 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4)
. R ath er, the r e m us t ha ve b ee n a n int en t to “d isa d va n ta ge or d e c eiv e” p lan p ar tic ip an ts
. Vall one, 375 F. 3d at 642. E R ISA req u ire s t ru st ee s t o d isc h ar ge th eir d u tie s “ in acco rdance w i th the docum ents and instr um ents gov er ni ng the p l a n . . . . ” ( the “ pl a n do c ume ntr ul e ” )
. 29 U. S
. C. § 1 10 4( a) ( 1) ( D)
. To m pk i ns a r g ue s th atthe F und b r e a c he d thi s du t y b y n o tp r o v i di ngh i m wi th the P l an Rules Govern in g Suspensi on, a docum ent he ar gues set l i m i ts o n h i s su bs eque nte m pl o y m en t. Al th o ug h the Pl an acknow l edges i ts f ailur e t o provi de Tom pki ns with th is d oc u m en t, T om p kin s’s arg u m en t n o n et h ele ss fails because the Pl an Rule s Gove rni ng S uspensi on does not apply to disabi l i ty benefi ts; r ather, i t deta i l s the suspensi on o fr eg ula r pensi on be nefi ts, as ev i denced by i ts p r o h ib i t i o n o n p e n s i o n e r s r e c e i v i n g“ a n y ty p e o fc o mp en sa t i on ” a n d th e a b ility of p en sio n er s t o b eg in r ec ei ving b en efi ts a g ain a fte rt er m i na tingdi squa l i fy i ng empl o y m en t. I t woul d no t be l o g i ca l f o r the se pr o vi si o ns to apply to som eone wh o i s t ot al l y a nd pe r mane ntly di sabl ed. A nd gi ven the defer ence that cour ts m ust g i ve fund s inter preting the i r own p l an docum ents, i t was notN o. 12

- 1995 15

arbi tr ar y o r capri ci ous for t he Fund to f ai l to gi ve Tom pki ns a docum ent that i t be l i eve d did not ap p ly to h i m. To m pk i ns a l so a r g ue s th atthe F und breach ed i ts fi duci ar y duti es ofcar e, sk i l l, prudence, and dilige n ce b y provi ding hi m with incor re ct o r i nsuffi ci ent no ti ce o f th e t e r m s o f h is d isa b ility be n efit s, p oin tin g s p ec ifica lly to the R et ire m ent Decl ar ati on that was notta i l or ed to disabi l i ty benefi ci ar i es. A ssum i ng tha t the Fund pro vi ded i na cc ur at e i nf o r m at i o n to To m pk i ns by g i ving hi m t he R e t i r e men tDe c l a r a t i o n r a the r tha n o ne t ai l or ed to di sabi l i ty pen si o ne r s, th er e i s no ev i den ce of i nte nt to de ce i ve o r di sad van ta g e hi m . F i r st, i t was the Fund’s s tandard prac ti ce t o provi d e that decl ar ati on to disabi l i ty p en sioners
. A nd m or e i m port antl y, the re qui r ementtha t d i sabi l i type ns i o ne r s l i k e To m pk i ns r emai n “ to ta l l y and p er m an en tly di sabl ed” was s eto ut el sewher e, i ncl ud i ng i n the Revi sed S PD , wh i ch To mpk i ns r e c e i v e d. Fi nal l y, Tom pki ns sugg est s that the Fund br eached i ts du ty by not suspending h is b enefi ts i n J anuary20 04, w h en it d isc ov er ed th at h e h ad ea rn ed $7,14 4.0 0 in 20 0 1 a nd $ 4 , 0 3 7
. 5 0 i n 2 0 0 2
. T hi s a r g ume nti s me r i t l ess . W he n the F und a sk ed To m pk i ns t o e xpl ain the nature ofhi s 2 001 and 2002 w or k, he r espon d ed thathe work ed eig h t to ten h ou rs a w eek rep airi ng nail gu ns and perf or m i ng l i ght o ffi ce duti es. Thi s w or k was nei ther fu l l

- t i me n o r c o n ne c t e d t o mo r e th a n $ 1 4 , 0 0 0 i n c o mpensati on, s o it w oul d not hav e t ri gge re d the t er m i nati o n o fb en efi ts unde r e i th eri nt er pr et ati o n o fthe16 N o. 12

- 1995 $14, 000 provi si on. Thus, the Fund’s failu re to te rm i nate hi s be nefi ts w as not a br each ofi ts fi du ci ar y duty.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe re ason s set f or th abo ve, we A F F I RM the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.

3- 13- 13