Opinion ID: 215905
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plain Language of Plan

Text: When interpreting ERISA plan provisions, general principles of contract law dictate that we interpret the provisions according to their plain meaning in an ordinary and popular sense. In applying the `plain meaning' analysis, we must give effect to the unambiguous terms of an ERISA plan. Williams v. Int'l Paper Co., 227 F.3d 706, 711 (6th Cir.2000) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). In other words, the Plan Administrator must adhere to the plain meaning of [the Plan's] language as it would be construed by an ordinary person. Kovach v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 587 F.3d 323, 332 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Morgan v. SKF USA, Inc., 385 F.3d 989, 992 (6th Cir.2004)). Accordingly, in determining whether benefits were due under the Plan, the starting point is the language of the Plan itself. See Wulf v. Quantum Chem. Corp., 26 F.3d 1368, 1374 (6th Cir.1994); Callahan v. Rouge Steel Co., 941 F.2d 456, 460 (6th Cir.1991) (explaining that the most important factor to weigh is the language of the plan itself as known by the employees, or as the employees should have known). Such review allows the Court to construe [the] ERISA plan with a view toward effectuating its general purpose. Kolkowski v. Goodrich Corp., 448 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir.2006). Starting with the language of the Plan, the relevant portion explicitly provides that certain suspensions and discharges are excluded from coverage under the Plan. Specifically, section 3.5(b) states that if you are suspended or discharged for one or more of these reasons, including insubordination, you will NOT be entitled to benefits under the Plan. Here, the language of the Plan is unambiguous, and it clearly mandates where an employee is terminated by his employer on the grounds of insubordination, such employee is not entitled to benefits under the Plan. Having determined that the language of the Plan is unambiguous, we next turn to whether the Plan Administrator had before it evidence that Farhner was suspended or discharged for insubordination. It is clear from the record, and the parties do not dispute, that Farhner was investigated by KCSR due to his failure to comply with the instructions given to him on May 25, 2004. Following such investigation and after a formal hearing, Farhner received a letter of dismissal on July 30, 2004, stating that he was being terminated for violating General Code of Operating Rule 1. 6, which prohibits employees from being insubordinate, and for violating General Code of Operating Rule 1.13. As a result of the stated reasons for Farhner's discharge, the Plan Administrator found that Farhner should not receive income-replacement benefits under the Plan.