Opinion ID: 430565
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Summary Plan Descriptions

Text: 17 A small booklet distributed to all employees described Bunker Hill's retirement benefit plan. This Summary Plan Description stated only one eligibility requirement for receiving insurance: that the applicant be receiving a pension from the Bunker Hill Company. Since the pension is lifelong, employees may have viewed the related insurance also to be a lifelong benefit. Moreover, the summary description assures pensioners that, upon their death, their children and surviving spouse may continue to be covered. Such language suggests that retirement insurance benefits may not have been limited to the duration of the collective bargaining agreement. 18 The district court discounted these statements because a disclaimer printed on the last page of the summary description specifically noted that the booklet was an illustration of benefits--not a contract and instructed employees to see a copy of the contract at the Personnel Office for a full explanation of insurance benefits. The district court found that no reasonable person could infer from plan descriptions limited in this manner that the booklet created contractual rights. 19 Both the summary plan descriptions and the disclaimers are required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 1001-1461 (1976 & Supp. V 1981) (ERISA). ERISA regulations also mandate that any limitations, reductions, or restrictions of plan benefits shall be described or summarized in a manner not less prominent than the style, captions, printing type, and prominence used to describe or summarize plan benefits. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 2520.102-2(b) (1982). The disclaimer in the Bunker Hill summary plan description, although set off from the main body of text, is printed in substantially smaller type than the remainder of the text. The adequacy of such a disclaimer on a summary plan description is a factual dispute, suggesting that summary judgment was not properly granted in this case. Cf. Corley v. Hecht Co., 530 F.Supp. 1155, 1163-64 (D.D.C.1982) (district court assessing adequacy of summary plan description).