Opinion ID: 2755185
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Governing Plan Documents

Text: In the alternative, Montanile argues that, even if a summary plan description theoretically could serve both roles, the district court erred by finding that terms found only in the NEI Summary Plan Description were enforceable because the Trust Agreement constituted the sole governing Plan document.5 Enforceable plan terms may be found in more than one document. See Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen, 514 U.S. 73, 83, 115 S. Ct. 1223, 1230 (1995) (“In the words of the key congressional report, ‘[a] written plan is to be required in order that every employee may, on examining the plan documents, determine exactly what his rights and obligations are under the plan.’” (quoting 5 Montanile no longer contends that the Bargaining Agreement is a governing Plan document. 16 Case: 14-11678 Date Filed: 11/25/2014 Page: 17 of 18 H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 93-1280, at 297, as reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5038, 5077-78) (emphasis added)). Montanile does not dispute this point. Here, the terms of the Trust Agreement demonstrate that the enforceable terms of the Plan are to be found in more than just that one document. In particular, the Trust Agreement does not “specify the basis on which payments are made to and from the plan,” as required by § 1102(b). Rather, it states that the Trustees will establish the “detailed basis on which payment of benefits is to be made” in “the Plan of Welfare Benefits.” Although the NEI Summary Plan Description does not carry the title contemplated by the Trust Agreement, it serves the precise function as that proposed for the “Plan of Welfare Benefits.” Indeed, Montanile initially admitted that the NEI Summary Plan Description was “one of the governing documents for the ERISA group health benefits Plan at issue in this case” before reversing course in his motion for summary judgment. Furthermore, if the enforceable terms of the Plan were limited to those found in the Trust Agreement, there would be no governing document that specifies Plan participants’ rights or obligations regarding benefits. Plan participants would thus be barred from enforcing their rights under the straight-forward provisions of § 1132(a)(1). And, if we held that the Board could not use the equitable provision of § 1132(a)(3) to enforce the Plan’s right to reimbursement, it would not be clear that Plan participants could enforce in equity any participant rights found solely in 17 Case: 14-11678 Date Filed: 11/25/2014 Page: 18 of 18 the NEI Summary Plan Description. We refuse to embrace such an outcome. See Admin. Comm. of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Associates’ Health & Welfare Plan v. Gamboa, 479 F.3d 538, 544 (8th Cir. 2007) (“ERISA requires a written arrangement, and no other document exists by which group health benefits are provided. . . . It would be nonsensical to conclude that the plain language of the Plan requires an interpretation that renders no plan at all under the terms of ERISA.”). We hold that the NEI Summary Plan Description constitutes a written instrument that sets out enforceable “terms of the plan.” See Alday, 906 F.2d at 666. Accordingly, pursuant to § 1132(a)(3), the Board could enforce the term found in the NEI Summary Plan Description that gave it a subrogation interest in sums recovered from third parties.