Opinion ID: 217949
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Minimum Benefits Provision Serves Only as a Floor to the Reduction Formula.

Text: We review ERISA plans as a whole; if they are unambiguous, we construe the Plan as a matter of law. Chiles, 95 F.3d at 1511. In order to determine whether a plan is ambiguous, we consider the common and ordinary meaning as a reasonable person in the position of the plan participant . . . would have understood the words to mean. Salisbury v. Hartford Life & Acc. Co., 583 F.3d 1245, 1248 (10th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Viewing the Plan Documents as a whole, it is clear that the Minimum Benefits Provision serves as a limitation only on the Reduction Formula, not on the Plan as a whole. The Minimum Benefits Provision is not a separate clause or section of the Planit is the sentence following the Reduction Formula, deep within subsection 2.6 of Article II of the Plan. See id. at 619, 624. Article II of the Plan is entitled Eligibility and Participation and contains details regarding qualified participants and the benefits for which they are eligible. Id. at 619. Further, the Minimum Benefits Provision references the Reduction Formula, strongly implying that its application is limited to reductions under the Formula. See 3 Aplt.App. at 624 (Notwithstanding the foregoing . . . such Basic Life Coverage amounts shall not be reduced below certain minimum amounts. . . . (emphasis added)). Nothing in the Minimum Benefit Provision so much as suggests that it is intended to serve as an overarching limitation on the Plan as a whole. On the other hand, the Reservation of Rights Clause is contained in Article X of the Plan, entitled Amendment and Termination. Id. at 638. Article X contains only two subsections: the Reservation of Rights Clause at issue here, and an analogous subsection reserving the right to terminate the Plan. Id. The Reservation of Rights Clause does not reference any particular part of the Plan, nor does its language suggest that its applicability is limited to Article X. Id. Thus, the Reservation of Rights Clause is clearly intended to apply to the Plan as a whole. In sum, there is simply no indication that the Minimum Benefits Provision of subsection 2.6(a) somehow serves as an overarching limitation on the entire Plan. It is safe to assume that the drafters of the Plan did not intend to hide elephants in mouseholes. Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 468, 121 S.Ct. 903, 149 L.Ed.2d 1 (2001). Only by considering the Minimum Benefits Provision apart from its overall context do Plaintiffs arrive at their interpretation. Reading the Plan Documents as a whole confirms the district court's interpretation: the Minimum Benefits Provision serves as a limitation on the Reduction Formula, while the Reservation of Rights Clause governs the entire Plan.