FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT SEPT 30, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P U B L I S H ] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 14626

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 8 1 0 1 4 - C V - D MM R O B E R T F R U L L A , on behal f of hi m se l f a nd as R epre se nt at i ve of a C la s s o f

p e r s o n s s im ila r ly s itu a te d , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C R A H O L D I N G S I N C ., f .k .a . I n te rn a tio n a l C o n tr o ls C o rp ., C R A H O L D I N G I N C . E M P L O Y E E W E L F A R E B E N E F I T P L A N , f . k. a . I nt e rna t i ona l C ontr ol s C orp. G r oup H e a l th I n s u r a n c e P la n , J O H N D O E 1 - 1 0 , a s P l a n Ad m i n i s tr a t o r s a n d / o rF i d u c i a r i e s o f th e C R A H ol di ng Inc. E m pl oyee W el fa re B enef i tP l an, L ake R e s o u r c e s , I n c ., L A K E R E S O U R C E S , I N C ., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

______________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 30, 2008)Honora ble Will iam S. Duffey, Jr., United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District * of Ge org ia, sitting by

designation. 2 B ef ore B IR C H and F A Y , C i rc ui tJudg es , and D U F F E Y , D i stri ctJudg e. * B IR C H , C i rc ui tJudg e: In thi s c as e w e m ustdeci de w hether aconsentdecr ee (“ the A gree d J udgm e nt ” ) obl i ga t i ng the A ppe l l e e C R A H ol di ngs , I nc . ( “ C R A ” ) t o pr ovi de t o the re t i re es of a pre dece ss or corporat i on l i fe t i m e hea l th car e c ov er age und eran i nsurance pl an precl ud es the i m po si t i on of a c on tri bu t i on re qu i re m ent . T he di stri ct c our tde ni e d A ppe l l a ntF rul l a ’ s r e que s tf ora de c l a r a t ory j udgm e nttha tthe c o n tr i b u t i o n r e q u i r e me n tv i o l a t e s th e Ag r e e d J u d g me n t . W e RE VERS E. I . B AC KG RO UN D A . T h e O r i gi n al A c t i on R ob ert F rul l a, a r et i re d em pl oyee of the ori gi nal corporat i on , T ra nsw ay Int ernat i on al C orpo ra t i on (“ T ra nsw ay ”) , re ce i ved b enef i t s und erthe T ra nsw ay I nt e rna t i ona l C orpor a t i on G r oup I ns ur a nc e P l a n f orN on- U ni on E m pl oy e e s of T ra nsw ay and S ub si di ar i es (“ T ra nsw ay P l an”) . In D ec em ber of 198 5, T ra nsw ay m er ged i nt o Int ernat i on al C on trol s C orp. (“ IC C ”) . P ursuantt o the M er ger A g r e e m e n t, I C C u n d e r to o k to p r o v id e th e T r a n s w a y r e tir e e s w ith b e n e f its

“ com parabl e t o, and i n n o eventl es s than, the benefi t s provi ded b y the [T ra nsw ay P la n ].” O n e y e a rla te r , h o w e v e r , I C C in f o r m e d th e T r a n s w a y r e tir e e s th a t it3

i nt e nde d t o pr ovi de the m w i th a ne w pl a n, e f f e c t i ve 1 J a nua ry 1987, w hi c h, a m ong o th e rth in g s , in c r e a s e d th e d e d u c tib le a m o u n t o n c la im s f o rin d iv id u a ls f

r o m $ 5 0 to $200. T he pl a n a l s o r e s e r ve d the I C C ’ s r i ghtt o m odi f y ort e r m i na t e be ne f

i t s a nd

“ t o am en d , m o d i fy, o r t erm i n at e th e P l an , i n cl u d i n g th e ri g h tt o req u i re o r i n crease E m pl oy e e c ontr i but i ons unde rthe P l a n a ta ny t i m e . . . w i thoutr e ga r d t o bus i ne s s or f in a n c ia l n e c e s s ity .” I n M a r c h o f

1 9 8 8 , f o u rr e tir e d T r a n s w a y e m p lo y e e s w h o w e r e p a r tic ip a n ts i n the ori gi nal T ra nsw ay P l an fi l ed a c l as s a ct i on l aw sui t(the “ O ri gi nal A ct i on ”) a g a in s t I C C , T r a n s w a y , a n d th e n e w I n te rn a tio n a l C o n tr o ls C o rp . G r o u p H e a lth I n s u r a n c e P la n ( “I C C P la n ” ) c h a lle n g in g th e a m e n d m e n t to th e I C C P la n . I n th e ir com pl ai nt , the pl ai nt i ff

s a l l eged thatthe new dedu ct i bl e provi si on ef fe ct ed an un autho ri ze d d i m i nu t i on of benefi t s a vai l abl e und erthe T ra nsw ay P l an as adop t ed b y I C C a n d s o u g h t to p e r m a n e n tly e n jo in I C C f

r o m e n f o r c in g a n y r e d u c tio n in be ne f i t s tha tw e r e a va i l abl e unde rthe T r a ns w a y P l a n be f or e 1 J a nua ry 1987, or f r om a l t e r i ng, a m e ndi ng, t e r m i na t i ng, ori n a ny w a y m odi f y i ng the be ne f

i t s of the T r a ns w a y P l a n. T he de f e nda nt s a ns w e r e d a nd de ni e d tha tthe r e w a s a ny a gr e e m e nt t o i m m uni z e pl a i nt i f

f s orm e m be r s of

the c l a s s f

r om pe r i odi c m odi f

i c a t i ons of ei ther the T ra nsw ay or IC C P l ans, bo th o f w hi ch re se rved, i n thei r s um m ary pl an d e s c r ip tio n s , th e r ig h t to m a k e s u c h m o d if ic a tio n s .4

I n O c t obe rof

1992, the pa r t i e s t o the O r i gi na l A c t i on e nt e r e d i nt o a prop osed S ett l em entA gree m entand R el ea se (“ S ett l em entA gree m ent ”) , i n w hi ch I CC a g r e e d t o p r o v i d e t o th e p l a i n t i f f s a n d o th e rCl a s s me mb e r s “ . . . th e s a me he a l th i ns ur a nc e be ne f

i t s I C C i s pr ovi di ng m e m be r s of the C l a s s t oda y unde rthe pol i c y i s s ue d by T r a ve l e r s I ns ur a nc e C om pa ny ; the s e be ne f i t s w i l l be pr ovi de d by IC C for the l i ves of the C l as s m em bers . ” A f t e rf i ndi ng tha tthe S e tt l e m e nt A gr e e m e ntw a s f

a i ra nd r e a s ona bl e , the di s tr i c tc our te nt e r e d a n A gr e e d J udgm e nt i n January of 19 93 re sol vi ng the l i t i gat i on . T he A gree d Jud gm ent , w hi ch i nc orpor a t e d the S e tt l e m e ntA gr e e m e nt , pr ovi de s tha t“ . . . I C C s ha l l pr ovi de the m em bers of the C l as s . . . i n acc ordance w i th the t erm s of the ful l y e xecut ed S e tt l e m e ntA gr e e m e nt , the s a m e he a l th i ns ur a nc e be ne f i t s I C C i s pr ovi di ng m em bers of the C l as s t od ay un der the po l i cy i ss ued b y T ra vel er s I nsurance C o m p an y; th ese b en efi t s w i l l b e p ro v i d ed b y IC C fo r th e l i v es o f th e C l ass m e m b e r s .” T he A gr e e d J udgm e ntbi nds the pa r t i e s t o the O r i gi na l A c t i on a nd a ny succ es sors or as si gn s a nd cont ai ns an i nt egra t i on cl ause prov i di ng thati t“ re sol ves a ll is s u e s b e tw e e n th e D e f e n d a n ts a n d th e C la s s r e la tin g to th e p r o v is io n o f h e a lth a nd l i f e i ns ur a nc e by the D e f

e nda nt s w hi c h a r e r a i s e d orc oul d ha ve be e n r a i s e d by th e p le a d in g s f

ile d in th is la w s u it.” B . M od i f

i c at i on of

t h e I C C P l an5

O n ora bout20 D e c e m be r1996, I C C c ha nge d i t s na m e t o G r e a tD a ne H ol di ng s I nc. and t he IC C P l an became the G re atD ane H ol di ng s I nc. E m pl oyee W e l f a r e B e ne f

i tP l a n ( the “ G r e a tD a ne P l a n” ) . I n J a nua ry of 1997, G r e a tD a ne H ol di ng s I nc. changed i t s nam e t o C R A H ol di ng s I nc. (“ C R A ”) and t he G re at D a n e Pl a n b e c a me th e CRA H o l d i n g s I n c . Emp l o y e e W e l f a r e Be n e f

i tPl a n ( “ CRA P la n ” ) . T he part i es agre e thatC R A and t he C R A P l an w er e, un der the nam es I n te rn a tio n a l C o n tr o ls C o rp . a n d I n te rn a tio n a l C o n tr o ls C o rp . G r o u p H e a lth I n s u r a n c e P la n , r e s p e c tiv e ly , d e f e n d a n ts in th e O r ig in a l A c tio n a n d th u s s u b je c t to th e te r m s o f

th e A g r e e d J u d g m e n t. I n M a y of

2005, a f t e rc ons ul t a t i on w i th a c tua r i e s a nd a na l y s i s of the f i n a n c i a l v i ab i l i ty o f

th e CRA Pl a n , CRA det erm i ned t hatthe C R A P l an w as ac tuari l y unsou nd and, consequent l y, am ended t he C R A P l an t o requi re a $50 per m onth c ontr i but i on f

r om T r a ns w a y r e t i r e e s pa r t i c i pa t i ng i n the C R A P l a n a nd a $ 1 0 0 p e rm o n th c o n tr ib u tio n f r o m r e tir e e s w h o a ls o h a d c o v e r a g e f o rth e ire lig ib le d e p e n d e n ts . U nde rthe ne w a m e ndm e nt , r e t i r e d e m pl oy e e s of T r a ns w a y , i nc l udi ng c la s s m e m b e r s in th e O r ig in a l A c tio n , w h o f a ile d to m a k e th e r e q u ir e d m o n th ly c o n tr ib u tio n w o u ld f

o r f e it th e irr ig h t to a ll f

u tu r e p a r tic ip a tio n in th e C R A P la n . P ay m entof these cont ri bu t i on s has been a condi t i on of cont i nu ed coverage under the C R A P l a n f

orT r a ns w a y r e t i r e e s s i nc e the a m e ndm e ntbe c a m e e f f e c t i ve on 1Although F rulla purp or te d toproc e e d a s a

c la ss repre sentativ e , n o c la ss w a s c e rtif ie d in 1 this action. 6 J une 2005. A ta l l t i m e s pr i ort o the a m e ndm e nt , i nc l udi ng the da t e of the 1992 S e tt l e m e ntA gr e e m e nta nd the 1993 A gr e e d J udgm e nt , ne i the rthe C R A P l a n nor i t s pr e de c e s s or s r e qui r e d pa r t i c i pa ntc ontr i but i ons . A l though a s of 1 A pr i l 2005 the trus tf

r om w hi c h be ne f

i t s unde rthe C R A P l a n a r e pa i d ha d a s s e t s of $ 2 ,8 5 7 ,5 3 9 , th e p a r tie s s tip u la te d th a t C R A is n o lo n g e ra c tiv e ly e n g a g e d in bus i ne s s a nd doe s notha ve the a bi l i ty t o m a ke a ny c ontr i but i ons t o the C R A P l a n. C . C ur r e nt Li t i g a t i o n O n 10 N ove m be r2005, F rul l a f i l e d a c om pl a i nti n di s tr i c tc our ts e e ki ng a decl ar at ory j ud gm entthatthe A gree d Jud gm enti n the O ri gi nal A ct i on ob l i gat es C R A t o pr ovi de he a l th c a r e be ne f i t s t o the c l a s s of

r e t i r e e s f

orl i f e , w i thout m on thl y c on tri bu t i on s or other pay m ent . F rul l a a l so soug hti nj un ct i ve re l i ef 1 proh i bi t i ng C R A fr om enforci ng i t s c on tri bu t i on re qu i re m entand an o rder re qu i ri ng C R A t o return any m on thl y c on tri bu t i on s a l re ady m ade. F rul l a s t i pu l at ed th a t in th e e v e n t h e w e r e to p r e v a il, h e w o u ld n o t s e e k to v o id th e a m e n d m e n t to the C R A P l a n, nort o e nj oi n f ur the ra m e ndm e nt s t o the C R A P l a n, “ a l l w i thout pr e j udi c e t o [ hi m ] s e e ki ng s uc h r e l i e f a nd r e c ove ry i n a ny s ubs e que ntl i t i ga t i on brou gh tby [F rul l a] . ” F ol l ow i ng a be nc h tr i a l , the di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha tthe A gr e e d J udgm e nt7

di d notpr e c l ude C R A f r om r e qui r i ng c ontr i but i ons be c a us e the pa r t i e s di d not in te n d f o r“th e s a m e h e a lth in s u r a n c e b e n e f its ” to in c lu d e th e c o n tr ib u tio n p o lic y . T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d F rul l a ’ s r e que s tf orde c l a r a t ory r e l i e f

a c c or di ngl y , a nd F ru l l a ap p eal s. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A tthe out s e t , w e not e tha ta l though ne i the rpa r ty c ha l l e nge s ourj ur i s di c t i on, we a r e o b l i g a t e d t o a d d r e s s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s s u a s p o n t e . S e e AT &T M obi l i ty , L L C v. N a t i ona l A s s ’ n f orS t oc k C a rA ut o R a c i ng, I nc . , 494 F . 3d 1356, 1 3 5 9 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) (i n t ern al q u o t at i o n s an d ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ) (“ S t an d i n g . . . i s a thr e s hol d j ur i s di c t i ona l que s t i on w hi c h m us tbe a ddr e s s e d pr i ort o a nd i nde pe nde nt of the m e r i t s of

a pa r ty ’ s c l a i m s . ” ) ; F l or i da A s s ’ n of R e hab. F a c i l i t i e s , 225 F . 3d 1208, 1227 n. 14 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( “ [ M ] ootne s s i s a j ur i s di c t i ona l i s s ue tha tm us tbe re sol ved atthe thres ho l d. ”) . F ol l ow i ng oral ar gu m ent , w e a sked the part i es t o b ri ef the i s s ue of

w he the r , gi ve n tha tC R A no l onge ri s a c t i ve l y e nga ge d i n bus i ne s s a nd i s una bl e t o c ontr i but e t o the C R A P l a n, thi s appe a l pr e s e nt s a j us t i c i abl e c a s e or c o n tr o v e r s y f

o rp u rp o s e s o f

s ta n d in g . W e c o n c lu d e th a t it d o e s . U nde rA r t i c l e I I I of

the C ons t i tut i on, f

e de r a l c our t s m a y onl y he a r“ c a s e s or c o n tr o v e r s ie s .” L u

ja n v . D e f

e n d e r s o f W ild lif e , 5 0 4 U .S . 5 5 5 , 5 5 9 - 6 0 , 1 1 2 S . C t. 2130, 2135- 36 ( 1992) . T he doc tr i ne of m ootne s s , w hi c h e vol ve d di r e c t l y f r om8

A rt i cl e I II ’ s c as e- or-c on trovers y l i m i t at i on , prov i des that“ the re qu i si t e per sonal i n t erestth atm u stex i statth e co m m en cem en to f th e l i t i g at i o n (st an d i n g ) m u st c ont i nue thr oughouti t s e xi s t e nc e ( m ootne s s ) . ” T a nne rA dve r . G r oup, L . L . C . v. F a y e tt e C ounty , G a . , 451 F . 3d 777, 785 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( e n ba nc ) ( c i t a t i on o m itte d ) . “A c a s e is m o o t w h e n it n o lo n g e rp r e s e n ts a liv e c o n tr o v e r s y w ith r e s pe c tt o w hi c h the c our tc a n gi ve m e a ni ngf ul r e l i e f . ” E thr e dge v. H a i l , 996 F . 2d 1173, 1175 ( 11th C i r . 1993) . O n the othe rha nd, a c a s e orc ontr ove r s y j us t i f y i ng decl ar at ory r el i ef

exi st s w here “ the chal l enged [ ] ac t i vi ty . . . i s notcont i ng ent , has n o t e v ap o r a te d o rd is ap p e a r e d , a n d , b y its c o n tin u in g a n d b r o o d in g p r e s e n c e , c a s ts w ha tm a y w e l l be a s ubs t a nt i a l a dve r s e e f f e c ton the i nt e r e s t s of

the pe t i t i oni ng p a r tie s .” S e e S u p e rT ir e E n g ’g C o . v . M c C o r k le , 4 1 6 U .S . 1 1 5 , 1 2 2 , 9 4 S . C t. 16 94 , 16 98 (197 4). W here decl ar at ory r el i ef i s s ou gh t , “ the qu es t i on . . . i s w hether the fa ct s a l l eged, un der a l l the ci rc um st ance s, show thatthere i s asubst ant i al c ontr ove r s y , be tw e e n pa r t i e s ha vi ng a dve r s e l e ga l i nt e r e s t s , of s uf f i c i e nt im m e d ia c y a n d r e a lity to w a rr a n t th e is s u a n c e o f a d e c la r a to ry ju d g m e n t.” M a ry l a nd C a s . C o. v. P a c i f i c C oa l & O i l C o. , 312 U . S . 270, 273, 61 S . C t . 510, 5 1 2 ( 1 9 4 1 ) ; s e e a l s o A e tn a Li f e I n s . Co . o f

H a r t f o r d , Co n n . v . H a w o r th , 3 0 0 U . S. 2 2 7 , 2 4 0 -4 1 , 5 7 S . C t . 4 6 1 , 4 6 4 (1 9 3 7 ) (h o l d i n g th ata l i v e co n tro v ersy “ ad m i t [s] of s pe c i f i c r e l i e f thr ough a de c r e e of

a c onc l us i ve c ha r a c t e r , a s di s t i ngui s he d f r om9

a n o p in io n a d v is in g w h a t th e la w w o u ld b e u p o n a h y p o th e tic a l s ta te o f f a c ts ” ) . S o lo n g a s C R A c o n tin u e s to r e q u ir e c o n tr ib u tio n s a s a p r e c o n d itio n to re ce i vi ng l i fe t i m e hea l th car e benefi t s, the part i es ’ di sput e over w hether e m pl oyee co n tri b u t i o n s v i o l at e th e A g reed Ju d g m en trem ai n s a l i v e co n tro v ersy th at“ cal l s, notf ora n a dvi s ory opi ni on upon a hy pothe t i c a l ba s i s , butf ora n a dj udi c a t i on of p r e s e n t r ig h t u p o n e s tab lis h e d f a c ts .” H a w o r th , 3 0 0 U .S . a t 2 4 2 , 5 7 S . C t. a t 4 6 5 ; se e S up erT i re E ng ’ g C o. , 41 6 U . S . at12 2, 94 S . C t . at16 98 . T hatthe C R A P l an apparent l y has no ac t i ve source of fund i ng other than t he chal l enged em pl oyee cont ri bu t i on s, and m ay no tre m ai n fi nanci al l y vi abl e i n thei r absence , do es no tal t er th i s r e s u l t . W h i l e b o th p a r t i e s a c k n o w l e d g e i n th e i rs u p p l e me n t a l b r i e f s th a tCRA i s una bl e t o m a ke c ontr i but i ons , a nd tha t , a s a r e s ul t , the C R A P l a n w i l l run outof m on ey soon er , ra ther than l at er , i f r equi re d con tri bu t i on s f rom the T ra nsw ay r e t i r e e s a r e de e m e d i m pe r m i s s i bl e unde rthe A gr e e d J udgm e nt , the r e i s no e v id e n c e , n o rh a s C R A a lle g e d , th a t th e C R A P la n c u rr e n tly is in s o lv e n t o ru n ab le to p r o v id e b e n e f

its to F ru lla if

th e c o n tr ib u tio n r e q u ir e m e n t is r e s c in d e d a s a r e s u lt o f th is litig a tio n . H avi ng det erm i ned t hatthi s app ea l pres ent s al i ve cont rovers y w i th res pect t o w hi c h w e m a y gi ve m e a ni ngf ul r e l i e f , w e turn t o the m e r i t s . W e r e vi e w the deni al of decl ar at ory r el i ef for a n abu se of di sc re t i on . S ee A m er i t as V ar i abl e L i fe10

I n s . C o . v . R o a c h , 4 1 1 F . 3 d 1 3 2 8 , 1 3 3 0 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) . Un d e rth i s s t a n d a r d , “ we w i l l l ea ve un di sturbed a di stri ctcourt ’ s rul i ng un l es s w e f i nd thatthe di stri ctcourt h a s m a d e a c le a re rr o ro f ju d g m e n t, o rh a s ap p lie d th e w r o n g le g a l s ta n d a r d .” I d . O n appe a l , F rul l a c ont e nds tha tthe A gr e e d J udgm e ntc l e a r l y a nd una m bi guous l y pr ohi bi t s the i m pos i t i on of a c ontr i but i on r e qui r e m e ntbe c a us e the obl i ga t i on t o “ pr ovi de ” be ne f i t s ne c e s s a r i l y i nc l ude s a n obl i ga t i on t o pay f orth o se benefi t s. H e a rgues a dd i t i on al l y that , i nsofaras the A gree d Jud gm entob l i gat es C R A t o p rovi de l i

f e t i me be ne f

i t s , i tuna m bi guous l y pr ohi bi t s C R A f r om te r m in a tin g th o s e b e n e f its u p o n th e f

a ilu r e o f th e r e tir e e s to p a y th e m o n th ly cont ri bu t i on s. F i nal l y, F rul l a c on t ends thatthe t erm “ benefi t s” re fe rs t o the t ot al eco n o m i c v al u e o f th e p l an , an d th erefo re, th e co n tri b u t i o n req u i rem en teffects a r e d u c tio n in b e n e f

its in v io la tio n o f

th e A g r e e d J u d g m e n t. C R A c ount e r s tha ti t s r i ghtt o r e qui r e c ontr i but i ons i s notpr e c l ude d or othe rw i s e l i m i t e d by the A gr e e d J udgm e ntbe c a us e the a bs e nc e of a c ontr i but i on r e q u ir e m e n t is n o t a “b e n e f it.” I t c o n c e d e s th a t th e A g r e e d J u d g m e n t lim its its ri gh tt o reduce the val ue of the benefi t s or t o t erm i nat e the pl an, bu tcont ends that i m pos i ng a c ontr i but i on r e qui r e m e nti s a f undi ng de c i s i on tha tdoe s notm odi f y or r e d u c e b e n e f

its a n d , th e r e f

o r e , is u n a f

f e c te d b y th e A g r e e d J u d g m e n t. T h e d is tr ic t ju d g e c o n c lu d e d f ir s t th a t th e A g r e e d J u d g m e n t d id n o t c le a r ly11

d e lin e a te th e p a r tie s ’ r ig h ts a n d o b lig a tio n s b e c a u s e th e p r o v is io n r e q u ir in g C R A to “p r o v id e . . . th e s a m e h e a lth in s u r a n c e b e n e f its ” w a s a m b ig u o u s a n d d id n o t f it ei ther party’ s i nt erpret at i on as an i ntri nsi c m att er . A ft erconsi deri ng the IC C P l an a s e vi de nc e of

the pa r t i e s ’ i nt e nt , he f

ound tha t“ be ne f

i t s ” a r e l i m i t e d t o the a m ount s pa y abl e by the pl a n f orde s i gna t e d m e di c a l s e r vi c e s . B e c a us e the c ontr i but i on r e qui r e m e nti s pa i d i nt o the pl a n by the r e t i r e e s , a nd notoutof the pl a n t o he a l thc a r e pr ovi de r s , a nd appl i e s uni f or m l y t o a l l r e t i r e e s i rr e s pe c t i ve of the m e di c a l s e r vi c e s the y r e c e i ve , the di s tr i c tc our tc onc l ude d tha tthe pr e s e nc e or a bs e nc e of

a c ontr i but i on r e qui r e m e nti s nota “ be ne f i t , ” a nd the r e f

or e , i m pos i ng a c o n tr ib u tio n r e q u ir e m e n t d o e s n o t v io la te th e A g r e e d J u d g m e n t. W e i nt e rpr e ta c ons e ntde c r e e a s w e w oul d a c ontr a c t , appl y i ng pr i nc i pl e s of F l or i da ’ s ge ne r a l c ontr a c tl a w . S e e S c hw a r t z v. F l or i da B d. of R e ge nt s , 807 F . 2d 90 1, 90 5 (11 th C i r. 19 87 ); P ar adi se v. P re sc ot t , 76 7 F . 2d 15 14 , 15 25 (11t h C i r. 1 9 8 5 ). U n d er F l o ri d a l aw , w e m u stco n stru e a co n tractt o g i v e effect t o th e p art i es’ i nt e nt . S e e B a r a ka tv. B r ow a r d C ounty H ous i ng A uth. , 771 S o. 2d 1193, 1194 (F l a. D i st . C t . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). W h ere th e co n tractu al t erm s are u n am b i g u o u s, w e m u st d e te r m in e th e p a r tie s ’ in te n t f r o m w ith in th e f

o u rc o rn e r s o f

th e c o n tr a c t. I d . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e th r e s h o ld q u e s tio n o f w h e th e ra c o n tr a c t is a m b ig u o u s . S e e R e y n o ld s v . R o b e r ts , 2 0 2 F .3 d 1 3 0 3 , 1 3 1 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . AAlthough th eI CC Pla n e xpre ssly

re serv e s I CC’ s right to im po see mpl oye ec ontributio ns , 2 neither theI CC P lan nor the reser vation-of- rights passag e contained there in was incorporated into th eAgre e d Judgment. Rather, theAgre e d Judgment re ferson ly to I CC’ s o bli g atio n to provide lifetime “benef

its” to the retire es. Had I CC wanted to ensurethat its right to modify the 12 cont ra cti s a m bi gu ou s w here i t“ i s s usce pt i bl e t o tw o d i ff er enti nt erpret at i on s, ea ch on e of w hi ch i s r ea sonabl y i nferre d from the t erm s of the cont ra ct . ” C om m er ci al C api t a l R e s . , L L C v. G i ova nne tt i , 955 S o. 2d 1151, 1153 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A pp. 20 07 ); se e a l so C on t i nent al Ins. C o. v. R ob ert s, 41 0 F . 3d 13 31 , 13 33 (11t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( ap p ly in g F lo r id a la w ) . I f th e in te rp r e ta tio n u r g e d b y o n e p a r ty is unr e a s onabl e i n l i ghtof the c ontr a c t ’ s pl a i n l a ngua ge , the c ontr a c ti s not a m bi guous , a nd the c our tm a y notus e e xtr i ns i c e vi de nc e t o va ry the t e r m s of the c o n tr a c t. S e e O r k in E x te r m in a tin g C o ., I n c . v . F .T .C ., 8 4 9 F .2 d 1 3 5 4 , 1 3 6 2 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 88 ). In det erm i ni ng w hether acont ra cti s a m bi gu ou s, w e m ustfi rs tl oo k at the w or ds on the f

a c e of the c ontr a c t . S e e R os e v. M /V “ G ul f S tr e a m F a l c on, ” 186 F .3 d 1 3 4 5 , 1 3 5 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . T he A gr e e d J udgm e ntpr ovi de s tha tC R A , a s I C C ’ s s uc c e s s or , “ s ha l l pr ovi de the m e m be r s of

the C l a s s . . . i n a c c or da nc e w i th the f ul l y e xe c ut e d S e tt l e m e nt A g r e e m e n t, the s am e he al th i ns ur anc e be ne f i t s IC Cis pr ov i di ng m e m be rs of the C lass today u n d er th e p o l i cy i ssu ed b y T rav el ers In su ran ce C o m p an y; th ese b e n e f its w i l l b e p ro vi ded

b y IC Cf o r th e l i ves o

f th e C la ss m em b ers .” ( e m p h a s is a dde d) . T he pa r t i e s a gr e e tha tthi s l a ngua ge pr ohi bi t s C R A f r om a m e ndi ng the 2Plan’s fundingstructurewould not be limited by the Agree d Judgment, it could have reser ved that right e xplic itly

in t heSe ttl e ment A gre e ment. It di d n ot, and wede c lin eto re a d into t

heplain languag eof

theAgre e d Judgment a

c on dition

on I CC’ s o therwiseun qu alif ie d obli g atio n to provide lifetime benefits to the re tirees that is not expli citly stated. See Schw artz, 807 F.2d at 906. Black’s L aw Dic tionary define s a “benefit” a s an “advantag e” or a “privilege ,” such a s 3 “the benefit of owninga ca r.” B lack’ s L aw Dic tionary 166 (8th ed. 2004). E lsewhere, a “bene fit”is de fine d a s “ 1. so me thingthat is a dv antag e ou s o r g oo d; a n adv antag e : He e

xplained 13 C R A P l an i n a w ay thatre du ce s or m od i fi es the benefi t s the T ra nsw ay re t i re es w er e r ec ei vi ng un der the IC C P l an, bu tdi sa gree ov erw hether the chal l enged cont ri bu t i on s have the ef fe ctof re du ci ng or m od i fy i ng tho se benefi t s. W e f i nd that the y do. I ti s a xi om a t i c tha ta pl a n w i thout a c on tri bu t i on re qu i re m enti s m ore a dva nt a ge ous t o the pa r t i c i pa nttha n a pl a n w ith a c o n tr ib u tio n r e q u ir e m e n t. T h is is because the ov er al l t ot al ec on om i c val ue of the benefi t s r ec ei ved u nd era pl an de c r e a s e s a s the c os tof

thos e be ne f

i ti nc r e a s e s . B e c a us e the l e ve l ore xi s t e nc e of a n e m pl oy e e c ontr i but i on thus di r e c t l y a f f e c t s the va l ue of

the be ne f

i t s r e c e i ve d, w e hol d thatno thavi ng t o p ay a c on tri bu t i on i s abenefi tof a heal th car e pl an. S ee M a gl i ul o v. M e tr opol i t a n L i f e I ns . C o. , 208 F . R . D . 55, 57 ( S . D . N . Y . 2002) ( f in d in g th a t a h ig h e rm o n th ly p r e m iu m c h a r g e e f f e c ts a r e d u c tio n in b e n e f its re ce i ved u nd eran i nsurance pl an because “ the benefi tdu e f rom [a n] i nsurance pl an is to r e c e iv e h e a lth c o v e r a g e f o ra c e r ta in p r ic e ” ) . T he c onc l us i on w e r e a c h t oda y i s i n a c c or d w i th both the or di na ry m e a ni ng o f a “b e n e f it” a n d o u rd e c is io n in H e f f n e rv . B lu e C r o s s & B lu e S h ie ld o f A la ., 3thebene

fit s o f pu blicown e rsh ip o

f th eposta l sy

stem. 2. a p ayment o r gift , as o nema deto h e lp someoneor given by

a benefit society

, insurance com

pany, or public agenc

y .”Random H ou se Dictionary

of the Eng lish L anguag e 194 (2d e d. 1987). See Robin v. Sun Oil Co., 548 F.2d 554, 557 (5th Cir. 1977) (“ We must accord to the w ords [in a contrac t] their plain, literal mea ning.” ); Thompson v. C.H.B., Inc., 454 So. 2d 55, 57 (F la. App. 1984) (holding that a n undefine d contractual ter

m “should be g iven [it s] natural meaning ”). The district cour

t attempted to find ambiguity in the Agree d Judgment by distinguishing 4 de du c tib le s f

ro m c ontributio ns on

theba sis that, u

nlikec ontributio ns , which a repaid u nif or mly by all participa

nts into the plan, de ductibles reduc e the amount the plan will pay for a particula r me dic al serv ic eand

thu s aredire c tly

re late d tothevalueof

a pla n’ s b e ne fits. We f

ind thi s rea soning unpersuasive, how ever , beca use it presupposes that “bene fits” under a healthcareplan include only

amounts paid out by

the plan for

designated medic al servic es. 14 Inc. , 44 3 F . 3d 13 30 (11t h C i r. 20 06 ). In H ef fner , w e s t at ed, al bei ti n d i ct a, that

“ no thavi ng t o p ay a deduct i bl e i s abenefi tof [a n i nsurance pl an] ” bec ause a dedu ct i bl e dec re as es , “ i n rea l ec on om i c t erm s, ” the val ue of the benefi t s off er ed un der the pl an. Id. at13 38 . A s w e have di sc usse d, the em pl oyee cont ri bu t i on s a t i s s ue i n thi s c a s e l i ke w i s e de c r e a s e , i n r e a l e c onom i c t e r m s , the va l ue of the be ne f i t s r e c e i ve d unde rthe C R A P l a n t o the e xt e nttha tthe y i nc r e a s e the c os tof tho se benefi t s. S ee i d. (not i ng thatthe val ue of benefi t s off er ed un der apl an

“ va r i e s i nve r s e l y w i th the a m ountof the de duc t i bl e ” ) . I n l i ghtof the f or e goi ng, 4 w e c on cl ud e thatthe A gree d Jud gm entprec l ud es C R A fr om re qu i ri ng em pl oyee c o n tr i b u t i o n s a s a p r e c o n d i t i o n t o c o n t i n u e d e l i g i b i l i ty f o rc o v e r a g e u n d e rth e CRA P la n a n d is n o t r e a s o n ab ly o rf a ir ly s u s c e p tib le to a n y o th e rin te rp r e ta tio n . I I I . CONCL US I ON B ecau se w e h o l d th atth e ab sen ce o f a co n tri b u t i o n req u i rem en ti s a15

“b e n e f it” o f a h e a lth in s u r a n c e p la n , w e f in d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng F rul l a’ s r equestfor adecl ar at ory j ud gm entthathe i s e nt i t l ed unde rthe A gr e e d J udgm e ntt o r e c e i ve he a l thc a r e be ne f i t s w i thoutha vi ng t o m a ke m o n th ly c o n tr ib u tio n s . A c c o r d in g ly , th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is R EVER SED .