UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

Deborah S. Hunt 

Clerk

100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 

POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE 

CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988 

Tel. (513) 564-7000 

www.ca6.uscourts.gov

 Filed: August 22, 2017 

 

 

Mr. William E. Altman 

Vercruysse, Murray & Calzone 

31780 Telegraph Road 

Suite 200 

Bingham Farms, MI 48025 

Mr. David M. Davis 

Law Offices 

401 S. Old Woodward Avenue 

Suite 400 

Birmingham, MI 48009-6629 

Mr. Andrew M. Harris 

Kitch Drutchas Wagner Valitutti & Sherbrook 

One Woodward Avenue 

Suite 2400 

Detroit, MI 48226 

Ms. Susan Healy Zitterman 

Kitch Drutchas Wagner Valitutti & Sherbrook 

One Woodward Avenue 

Suite 2400 

Detroit, MI 48226 

 Re: Case No. 16-2726, John Butler v. FCA US, LLC

Originating Case No. : 2:14-cv-14752 

Dear Counsel, 

 The Court issued the enclosed opinion today in this case. 

2:14-cv-14752-SFC-RSW Doc # 67 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 3048 Case: 16-2726 Document: 27-1 Filed: 08/22/2017 Page: 1 (1 of 9)
 Sincerely yours, 

 

 

s/Cheryl Borkowski 

Case Manager 

Direct Dial No. 513-564-7035 

cc: Mr. David J. Weaver 

Enclosure 

Mandate to issue 

2:14-cv-14752-SFC-RSW Doc # 67 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 2 of 9 Pg ID 3049 Case: 16-2726 Document: 27-1 Filed: 08/22/2017 Page: 2 (2 of 9)
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION 

File Name: 17a0485n.06 

No. 16-2726 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JOHN BUTLER, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

FCA US, LLC, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE EASTERN 

DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

Before: GUY, ROGERS, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges. 

 KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. John Butler worked for Chrysler for more than 40 years. 

He purchased accident insurance through the company, and filed a claim for benefits when a car 

crash left him unable to work. Chrysler’s successor, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles US, LLC (whom 

we refer to simply as Chrysler) denied the claim through the insurer then administering the 

accident-insurance plan, MetLife. Butler then sued Chrysler under the Employee Retirement 

Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), arguing that he was entitled to benefits and that Chrysler 

had wrongfully refused to provide him with plan documents. The district court granted summary 

judgment to Chrysler. We affirm. 

I. 

 Butler was injured in a car crash in July 2008. After the crash, he was diagnosed with 

post-traumatic stress disorder, post-concussion syndrome, double vision, and hearing loss. 

2:14-cv-14752-SFC-RSW Doc # 67 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 3 of 9 Pg ID 3050 Case: 16-2726 Document: 27-2 Filed: 08/22/2017 Page: 1 (3 of 9)
No. 16-2726, Butler v. FCA US, LLC 

-2- 

Chrysler placed Butler on disability leave until he retired in May 2011. At that point, Butler 

began to receive a disability pension. 

 Six days after retiring, Butler filed a claim for additional benefits under Chrysler’s 

accident-insurance plan. The insurer then administering the plan, MetLife, construed Butler’s 

claim as one for “Traumatic Brain Injury Benefit[s]” as defined by the insurance policy in effect 

in July 2008. MetLife denied the claim and upheld its decision when Butler appealed. Butler 

responded by requesting a copy of the 2008 policy—first from MetLife, and then from Benefits 

Express, another company that helped Chrysler administer its employee-benefit plans. Before he 

received the policy, Butler consulted the plan’s latest “summary plan description”—a document 

that describes the terms of an ERISA plan in terms “calculated to be understood by the average 

plan participant.” 29 U.S.C. § 1022(a). Butler wrote to MetLife, asserting that he was entitled to 

“Total Permanent Disability Benefit[s]” under the summary. MetLife responded that Chrysler’s 

accident insurance did not include such a benefit. 

 Butler thereafter brought this lawsuit, alleging (among other things) that Chrysler 

improperly denied him benefits in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) and failed to provide 

him with plan documents in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4). Chrysler moved for summary 

judgment, which the district court granted. The court held that Chrysler’s accident insurance did 

not cover total and permanent disabilities, and that nothing in the summary plan description 

should have led Butler to believe otherwise. The court also held that Butler’s requests for a copy 

of the 2008 policy did not trigger Chrysler’s statutory duty to produce the document. This 

appeal followed. 

2:14-cv-14752-SFC-RSW Doc # 67 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 4 of 9 Pg ID 3051 Case: 16-2726 Document: 27-2 Filed: 08/22/2017 Page: 2 (4 of 9)
No. 16-2726, Butler v. FCA US, LLC 

-3- 

II. 

A. 

We review de novo the district court’s decision that Butler was not entitled to benefits. 

McClain v. Eaton Corp. Disability Plan, 740 F.3d 1059, 1064 (6th Cir. 2014). 

A participant in an ERISA plan can sue “to recover benefits due to him under the terms 

of his plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). A plan’s terms must be memorialized in a “written 

instrument.” Id. at § 1102(a)(1). A summary plan description can be part of a plan’s governing 

instrument, but only if the summary itself so provides. See Bd. of Trs. v. Moore, 800 F.3d 214, 

220 (6th Cir. 2015). Here, the 2007 summary—the one in effect when Butler was injured in July 

2008—provides that “[t]his handbook is intended to be the summary plan description as well as 

the plan document.” But the summary also states that, if the summary conflicts with the 

accident-insurance policy, then “the terms of the . . . policy will prevail.” Thus, if the policy 

does not list the benefit that Butler now seeks, he cannot recover it under § 1132(a)(1)(B)—

regardless of whether the summary lists the benefit. 

 The document that the parties refer to as the MetLife Certificate is “part of the . . . 

policy” that was in effect when Butler was injured. That document lists each of the benefits 

included in Chrysler’s accident insurance. A benefit for total and permanent disabilities is not 

among them, which means that the policy does not include that benefit. Butler therefore cannot 

recover under § 1132(a)(1)(B). 

 Butler next argues that the 2007 summary plan description is misleading. If a summary 

would lead an average plan participant to believe that a benefit is included when it is not, then a 

participant can recover under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), which authorizes district courts to remedy 

2:14-cv-14752-SFC-RSW Doc # 67 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 5 of 9 Pg ID 3052 Case: 16-2726 Document: 27-2 Filed: 08/22/2017 Page: 3 (5 of 9)
No. 16-2726, Butler v. FCA US, LLC 

-4- 

“false or misleading” statements in summaries with “appropriate equitable relief.” See CIGNA 

Corp. v. Amara, 563 U.S. 421, 438-42 (2011). 

Here, Butler points to two sentences in the 2007 summary that, he says, led him to 

believe that Chrysler’s policy covered total and permanent disabilities. First, the summary states 

that it is “describ[ing] the [accident-insurance plan] in effect as of April 1, 2004, and the benefits 

for . . . accidental injuries sustained on or after that date.” In Butler’s view, that means that every 

benefit available in April 2004 was still available in 2007, including the total-permanentdisability benefit, which was listed in a 2002 summary plan description, and remained part of the 

plan after it was amended on April 1, 2004. 

If an average plan participant read only that sentence, we agree that he might be misled. 

But we presume that participants read the entire summary, interpreting provisions in context. 

See Kolkowski v. Goodrich Corp., 448 F.3d 843, 851 (6th Cir. 2006). The 2007 summary 

discusses in detail each benefit included in Chrysler’s accident insurance. The total-permanentdisability benefit is not mentioned, much less explained. That should have alerted participants 

that the benefit was no longer part of the policy. Butler responds that, given the summary’s 

reference to the benefits available in 2004, the omission of this benefit might have been a 

“drafting gaffe.” Appellant’s Br. at 27. But the 2007 summary recited at least a dozen other 

changes to Chrysler’s accident insurance, e.g., a new benefit for injuries sustained in a car 

accident where an airbag deploys. That makes reasonably clear that Chrysler removed the totalpermanent-disability benefit deliberately, as one change among many that year. 

Second, Butler contends that the summary’s statement that the “Total Permanent 

Disability Benefit . . . may be taxable as ordinary income” implies that the benefit remained part 

of the policy. Some plan participants who qualified for the total-permanent-disability benefit 

2:14-cv-14752-SFC-RSW Doc # 67 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 6 of 9 Pg ID 3053 Case: 16-2726 Document: 27-2 Filed: 08/22/2017 Page: 4 (6 of 9)
No. 16-2726, Butler v. FCA US, LLC 

-5- 

before it was removed from the plan, however, might have received their benefit payment 

afterward. The warning thus does not imply that the benefit remained available. 

 Butler’s final point with respect to benefits is that, in response to Butler’s interrogatories, 

Chrysler admitted that the total-permanent-disability benefit was available until February 28, 

2008. By that admission, Butler contends, Chrysler conceded that the 2007 summary did cover 

total and permanent disabilities. But again, Butler’s inference is mistaken. The policy that was 

in effect through February 2008 explicitly covered total and permanent disabilities. Thus, 

Chrysler’s admission was simply an acknowledgment that, up until March 2008, the policy 

conflicted with the 2007 summary—and that the policy therefore governed. Once the new policy 

took effect, there was no conflict, and the total-permanent-disability benefit became unavailable. 

Butler responds that he was not notified when the change took effect on March 1, 2008. But the 

2007 summary was itself notice that the benefit would be discontinued. That Butler actually 

received several additional months of coverage did not require Chrysler to notify him again when 

the extra coverage ended. Butler’s claim for benefits fails. 

B. 

Butler also argues that Chrysler refused to give him plan documents in violation of 

29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4). Under that provision, if a plan participant requests in writing certain 

plan documents—including the “instrument[] under which the plan is established or operated”—

the employer must provide the documents within 30 days. Id.; 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1). If the 

employer fails to do so, then a district court “may in [its] discretion” award the participant up to 

$100 per day in damages. Id. at § 1132(c)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion a district 

court’s decision not to award damages. Cultrona v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 748 F.3d 698, 706 

(6th Cir. 2014). 

2:14-cv-14752-SFC-RSW Doc # 67 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 7 of 9 Pg ID 3054 Case: 16-2726 Document: 27-2 Filed: 08/22/2017 Page: 5 (7 of 9)
No. 16-2726, Butler v. FCA US, LLC 

-6- 

 As noted above, Butler wrote to MetLife in December 2012, requesting “a copy of the 

Group Certificate and the Group Policy” under “which [Butler] was covered on the date of his 

accident.” MetLife referred Butler to Benefits Express, another company that helped Chrysler 

administer its employee-benefit plans. Butler sent Benefits Express the same letter he had sent 

MetLife, but he never heard back from them. Thus he emailed Chrysler directly on February 14 

and 22, 2013—both times requesting “information regarding the Total Permanent Disability 

Benefit.” On March 11, 2013, Chrysler emailed Butler the MetLife Certificate, which, at the 

time Butler was injured, also served as the plan policy. 

 Butler first contends that Chrysler violated § 1024(b)(4) because they took three months 

to produce the MetLife Certificate. As an initial matter, however, we doubt that Butler’s letters 

to MetLife and Benefits Express triggered Chrysler’s duty to produce, which arises only when a 

plan participant writes to the employer itself. See, e.g., McCarthy v. Ameritech Pub., Inc., 

763 F.3d 469, 485 (6th Cir. 2014). Moreover, the district court properly considered whether the 

delay prejudiced Butler. Cultrona, 748 F.3d at 708. And Butler presented no evidence of 

prejudice. 

 Butler also contends that, although he possessed the 2007 summary, he was entitled to the 

2007 policy itself, which Chrysler failed to produce. But an employer need produce a document 

only if a participant provides “clear notice” that he wants it. Cultrona, 748 F.3d at 707. 

In Butler’s letters, he requested only the policy under “which [he] was covered on the date of his 

accident”—that is, the 2008 policy. And in Butler’s emails, he did not request any specific 

documents at all. Moreover, given that the 2007 policy was not in effect when Butler was 

injured, he could not recover benefits under that policy. Chrysler’s failure to produce the 

2:14-cv-14752-SFC-RSW Doc # 67 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 8 of 9 Pg ID 3055 Case: 16-2726 Document: 27-2 Filed: 08/22/2017 Page: 6 (8 of 9)
No. 16-2726, Butler v. FCA US, LLC 

-7- 

2007 policy therefore did not prejudice Butler. Hence the district court did not abuse its 

discretion by refusing to award Butler damages. 

 The district court’s judgment is affirmed. 

2:14-cv-14752-SFC-RSW Doc # 67 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 9 of 9 Pg ID 3056 Case: 16-2726 Document: 27-2 Filed: 08/22/2017 Page: 7 (9 of 9)