Opinion ID: 565303
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other theories of recovery

Text: 17 In Nachwalter v. Christie, 805 F.2d 956, 959-61 (11th Cir.1986), this court held that ERISA does not permit enforcement of oral amendments or modifications of a plan. The court in Kane clarified Nachwalter's scope by holding that ERISA permits a beneficiary's claim based on federal common law of equitable estoppel to enforce oral interpretations of ambiguous plan provisions. 893 F.2d at 1286 ([b]ecause the issue before us involves an oral interpretation of an ERISA plan, the Nachwalter decision, which is limited to oral amendments and modifications, is not controlling). Under Kane, a plaintiff may bring a federal common law equitable estoppel claim where: 18 (a) the provisions of the plan at issue are ambiguous such that reasonable persons could disagree as to their meaning or effect, and (b) representations are made to the employee involving an oral interpretation of the plan. 19 Alday v. Container Corp. of America, 906 F.2d 660, 666 (11th Cir.1990) (discussing Nachwalter and Kane). Unless both conditions are met Nachwalter, not Kane, controls the case, and a beneficiary has no equitable estoppel claim. Id. 20 Vicki contends that we should affirm the district court's judgment on the basis of Kane. She says that the plan's provisions dealing with changes of beneficiaries were ambiguous because Southern Bell never told Charles how he could change his beneficiary, and that, although the plan description booklet provided that a member of the plan could change his or her beneficiary by completing the proper form, Southern Bell did not clearly identify that form. She contends that her claim satisfies the second requirement set out in Alday because the plan description booklet provided that employees should consult their supervisors if they had questions about the plan, and that Gray's signing of the certificate of insurance amounted to a representation that the certificate was the proper form for effectuating a change of beneficiaries. 21 Southern Bell asserts that Nachwalter rather than Kane controls this case because the plan provisions dealing with changes of beneficiary are not ambiguous. The certificate of insurance that Charles presented to Gray provided that Entries Below Are To Be Made Only By The Employer. No Other Entries Will Be Valid, and the company contends that this provision unambiguously invalidated the entries that Charles made on the certificate. 22 Because we decided both Kane and Alday after the district court entered its judgment in this case, neither party presented these contentions to the district court, and we decline to address them in the first instance. It is a general rule, of course, that a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below. Clark v. Coats & Clark Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 609 (11th Cir.1991), quoting Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2877, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976). Compliance with this rule is prudent in light of the circumstances of this case, because the inquiry into whether Simmons has established an equitable estoppel claim under Kane will focus on two issues: (1) whether the plan provisions dealing with changes of beneficiaries were ambiguous, and (2) whether Gray's actions amounted to a representation that interpreted those provisions. The district court's findings of fact in this case were almost exclusively related to the different issue of whether the company breached its fiduciary duties. Therefore, we remand to the district court in order that it may enter additional findings relating to the matters currently at issue. 23 We express no opinion on the merits of Vicki's claim under Kane. On remand the parties, of course, may raise any claims or defenses previously raised in the pleadings and not rejected by this opinion. 24 VACATED and REMANDED.