Opinion ID: 3167688
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: United was authorized to change the Premier

Text: Program benefits at any time. The record establishes (1) that all members of the MileagePlus program, regardless of status, agreed to be bound by the MileagePlus Program Rules, and (2) that General Condition No. 1 of the Program Rules allowed United to modify the program benefits “at any time,” with or without notice. In the absence of any additional agreement between the parties, these facts permit only one conclusion: United was allowed to modify the program benefits associated with the premier status levels of MileagePlus “at any time,” so its decision to do so for the year 2012 was not a breach of contract. Naturally, the plaintiffs attempt to avoid this conclusion by arguing that their qualification for premier status gave rise to an additional, independent contract for premier benefits—one to which General Condition No. 1 of the Program Rules did not apply. We recently considered a similar argument in Lagen. There, the plaintiff sued United for breach of contract after it downgraded the putative “lifetime” benefits associated with the exalted “Million‐Mile Flyer” status level of MileagePlus. 774 F.3d at 1125–27. The plaintiff argued that his participation in the Million‐Mile Flyer Program generated a separate agreement that was exempt from the general modification provision of the 8 Nos. 15‐1836 & 15‐1845 Program Rules, which, as here, allowed United to change the program benefits at any time. Id. Yet the evidence all pointed in the opposite direction: the Million‐Mile Flyer Program was simply a component of MileagePlus, not a free‐standing contract for Million‐Mile Flyer benefits. Id. at 1127. In particular: (1) only members of MileagePlus were eligible to receive Million‐Mile Flyer status; (2) information about the Million‐Mile Flyer Program was situated “under the umbrella” of MileagePlus on United’s website; and (3) a member’s Million‐Mile Flyer status was indicated on his ordinary MileagePlus membership card. Id. In light of these facts, the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a separate agreement for benefits apart from the agreement governed by the MileagePlus Program Rules. Because those rules expressly allowed United to change the program benefits at any time, we concluded that United did not breach a contract by altering the benefits associated with the Million‐Mile Flyer status level of MileagePlus. Id. As in Lagen, there is no evidence in this case that the plaintiffs’ enhanced status levels within the MileagePlus program formed an independent contract that was exempt from the general modification provision of the MileagePlus Program Rules. It is undisputed that premier status was awarded only to members of MileagePlus and was reflected on the ordinary MileagePlus membership card. Nor is there any question that the Premier Program was “under the umbrella” of MileagePlus as delineated on United’s website. All the evidence thus points in one direction: the premier status levels of the MileagePlus program were simply a subordinate part of that program whose benefits United Nos. 15‐1836 & 15‐1845 9 could legitimately alter at any time. Despite the plaintiffs’ best efforts to distinguish this case from Lagen, our holding in Lagen effectively paralyzes the plaintiffs’ primary argument on appeal. And where this case does differ from Lagen, the difference is anything but helpful to the plaintiffs. As the dissent in Lagen made clear, United’s greatest obstacle to summary judgment in that case was its explicit advertisement of “lifetime” benefits in connection with the Million‐Mile Flyer Program—a representation that seemed to be directly at odds with United’s reserved right to modify the benefits at any time. By contrast, United did not advertise “lifetime” benefits under the Premier Program, nor did it otherwise make any comparable representations that would appear inconsistent with the possibility of future modifications. To the contrary, the premier status webpages indicated that the Premier Program was subject to the Program Rules, which authorized United to change the program benefits on a whim. In sum, the advertisement of putative “lifetime” benefits in Lagen was the strongest fact supporting the plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract—and it is a fact not present here. But this does not end the matter. The plaintiffs do not simply argue that General Condition No. 1 did not apply to the Premier Program on grounds that the latter was a separate contract not governed by the Program Rules. They also argue that, even assuming the Program Rules did govern the Premier Program as a general matter, United’s authority to modify premier benefits was independently governed by a conflicting modification provision—one specific to the Premier Program—that contractually 10 Nos. 15‐1836 & 15‐1845 supplanted the otherwise applicable General Condition No.
In support of this argument, the plaintiffs rely on the premier status webpages’ dual representations that the Program Rules applied to the Premier Program “unless otherwise stated,” and that premier benefits were “subject to change from year to year.” By the plaintiffs’ logic, a provision authorizing the changing of benefits from year to year is “entirely inconsistent” with a provision allowing changes at any time. The plaintiffs thus assert that the Premier Program’s “year to year” provision effectively stated otherwise than General Condition No. 1 of the Program Rules. As a result, they argue that United was not allowed to change premier benefits at any time, but “only ‘from year to year.’” There are several problems with this argument. For one thing, despite their acknowledgment that the Program Rules unambiguously applied to the Premier Program “unless otherwise stated,” none of the evidence relied upon by the plaintiffs suggests that United ever “stated” that General Condition No. 1. did not apply to the Premier Program. More importantly, in describing the potential for future modifications, the webpages simply declared that premier benefits could change “from year to year”—not that they could change only from year to year—and the mere fact that benefits may be changed from year to year does not mean that they may not also be changed at more frequent intervals as well. The plaintiffs have thus failed to identify anything in the Premier Program that is inconsistent with United’s reserved right to modify the program benefits at any time. Nos. 15‐1836 & 15‐1845 11 Simply put, the record does not support a reasonable inference that United implicitly excluded General Condition No. 1. from the annual Premier Program merely by relating that the corresponding program benefits could be expected to change on an annual basis. And even if the Premier Program is (unreasonably) interpreted to allow changes only from year to year, United would still be entitled to summary judgment, for its modification of premier benefits from 2011 to 2012 was just that: a change of benefits from year to year. Either way, United was authorized to change the benefits for the year 2012, and United cannot be said to have breached a contract by doing exactly what the contract authorized.