Opinion ID: 723147
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Plan Interpretation Claim

Text: 14 Since the Sears' plans gave the plan administrator discretionary authority to interpret the terms of the plans, we review the plan administrator's determinations under an arbitrary and capricious standard of review. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (1989). Judge Bell found no genuine issue of material fact regarding the alleged arbitrary and capricious nature of the plan administrator's determinations. Neither do we. 15 Interpretation of an ERISA plan is guided by traditional principles of contract interpretation according to federal law. See Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 56-57 (1987). [E]ach provision of a contract should be interpreted as part of an integrated whole, to the end that all of the provisions may be given effect if possible. Musto v. American General Corp., 861 F.2d 897, 906 (6th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1020 (1989). 16 The plan administrator's interpretation reasonably harmonized the coordination and termination provisions of Plan D: when read together, it becomes clear that Plan D coordinates Medicare benefits received by the dependent, not the covered employee, and that when the employee receives Medicare benefits she is switched to Plan E. This was the interpretation adopted by the plan administrator and it is neither arbitrary nor capricious. Ms. Bowers' contentions do not raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the plan interpretation.