Opinion ID: 2976256
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Vesting Determination

Text: The district court held that the retiree health benefits provisions in the EBAs clearly and unambiguously established that the parties did not intend for Plaintiffs’ health benefits to vest. Having examined the language of the MOA and the EBAs, this court finds that the district court improperly granted summary judgment in favor of PolyOne for numerous reasons. First, PolyOne’s argument that the MOA’s language indicates that Plaintiffs’ health benefits were not intended to vest fails. Second, the durational provisions relied on by PolyOne and the district court are general in nature and do not preclude a finding that the parties intended Plaintiffs’ benefits to vest. Third, provisions in the EBAs expressly tie eligibility for retiree health benefits to eligibility for a pension, which we have repeatedly held evinces an intent to vest. Fourth, adopting the interpretation urged by PolyOne and accepted by the district court would render several promises made in the EBAs illusory, a result in violation of our precedent. Fifth, the presence of specific vesting language in the pension benefits portion of the EBAs does not lead to the conclusion that Plaintiffs’ health benefits have not vested. 1. The MOA Language does not Preclude a Finding that Plaintiffs’ Health Benefits were Intended to Vest PolyOne argues that the MOA itself establishes that the parties never intended for Plaintiffs’ health benefits to vest. PolyOne believes that the MOA negates any intent to vest because it limits benefits to the duration of the agreement and provides that the agreement may be changed by subsequent negotiations. The MOA states in pertinent part: The Pension Plan, including the requirement for compulsory retirement at age seventy, the Hospitalization, Surgical and Medical Expense Insurance Program . . ., and the Prescription Drug Program presently in effect for the majority of The BFGoodrich Company’s production and maintenance employees shall be in effect for the life of this Agreement; provided that if during the term of this Agreement the Plan or Programs are changed for such majority, such changes shall be made effective on the same date they are made effective for the majority of The BFGoodrich production and maintenance employees and remain in effect for the life of this Agreement. JA at 646 (emphasis added). PolyOne first asserts that the italicized phrase “shall be in effect for the life of this Agreement” is a specific durational clause that precludes a finding that Plaintiffs’ health benefits have vested. Plaintiffs counter by arguing that the provision is a general durational No. 07-5068 Noe, et al. v. PolyOne Corp. Page 5 clause and is insufficient to demonstrate that retiree health benefits have not vested. With regard to this issue, the district court agreed with Plaintiffs that the MOA’s durational clause was general in nature. See Noe, 2006 WL 3759601, at  n.7. As explained in Yolton, “[a]bsent specific durational language referring to retiree benefits themselves, courts have held that the general durational language says nothing about those retiree benefits.” Yolton, 435 F.3d at 581. In Yolton, the court concluded that a provision stating that the “group insurance plan will . . . run concurrently with this Agreement” was a general durational clause and did not preclude a finding that retiree health benefits had vested. Id. Like the agreement in Yolton, there is no language in the MOA specifically stating that retiree health benefits expire upon the termination of the agreement. It speaks generically of all benefits for all employees; language that does not constitute a specific durational clause under our precedent. See id.; see also Maurer, 212 F.3d at 917-18 (finding that a CBA termination clause was not a specific durational clause because it did not specifically reference retiree benefits). PolyOne’s reliance on Linville v. Teamsters Misc. & Indus. Workers Union, Local 284, 206 F.3d 648, 650 (6th Cir. 2000), for the proposition that the MOA language is a specific durational clause is misplaced. In Linville, the clause at issue expressly stated that health insurance under the company’s plan “ceases when the individual reaches age sixty-five.” Linville, 206 F.3d at 649. No such language is present in this case, and there is no discussion in Linville regarding whether a clause such as that contained in the MOA is a general or specific durational provision. Linville is also distinguishable because the agreement there stated that no individuals were to receive health benefits after attaining age sixty-five. Id. Instead, as in Yard-Man and Maurer, the opposite is true in this case; the EBAs actually contain language indicating that certain health benefits start at age sixty-five and last until death. See § 12.15(h), JA at 185. Because the MOA language is analogous to that used in Yolton, and Linville does not apply, we reject PolyOne’s argument and find that the MOA provision is a general durational clause that does not preclude a finding that Plaintiffs’ health benefits have vested. PolyOne next argues that the MOA’s statement that “if during the term of this Agreement the Plan or Programs are changed for such majority, such changes shall be made effective on the same date they are made effective for the majority” of BFGoodrich employees at other facilities, precludes a finding that Plaintiffs’ health benefits have vested. According to PolyOne, this language authorizes it to alter Plaintiffs’ health benefits at any time; therefore, such benefits have not vested. While construing the MOA in this manner has some merit on the surface, a close examination of the entirety of the MOA highlights the error in such an interpretation. The MOA provision at issue begins with the words “[t]he Pension Plan, including . . . the Hospitalization, Surgical and Medical Expense Insurance Program . . ., and the Prescription Drug Program.” JA at 646 (emphasis added). Looking to the specific language relied on by PolyOne, the MOA states “provided that if during the term of this Agreement the Plan or Programs are changed for such majority, such changes shall be made effective” for Plaintiffs. It is apparent that the use of the word “Plan” in the latter sentence refers back to the phrase “Pension Plan” in the former sentence, while the word “Program” in the latter sentence refers back to the former phrase “Hospitalization, Surgical and Medical Expense Insurance Program . . . and the Prescription Drug Program.” Adopting PolyOne’s construction that by permitting the company to make changes to the agreements, the MOA language negates any intent to vest retiree health benefits, would necessarily lead to the conclusion that the benefits provided by the pension plan are subject to change and not vested. According to Yolton, such an argument fails “because the same language was used regarding pensions and health benefits . . . [g]iven the defendant’s logic, because its pension plan was incorporated into the collective bargaining agreement, its obligation to provide pensions ended with the expiration of the agreement.” Yolton, 435 F.3d at 581 n. 7 (quoting to the district court’s opinion No. 07-5068 Noe, et al. v. PolyOne Corp. Page 6 in Golden). As Yolton seems to have implicitly recognized, such a result is forbidden by ERISA, which requires that pension benefits automatically vest. See Yolton, 435 F.3d at 580-81; see also Maurer, 212 F.3d at 914 (stating that pension plans are subject to mandatory vesting under ERISA). Given that pension benefit plans cannot be changed in the manner PolyOne’s interpretation would suggest, it follows that the MOA language at issue does not establish that Plaintiffs’ health benefits under the “Program” were not intended to vest. 2. Sections 12.1 and 16.4 of the EBAs are General Durational Clauses Similar to its MOA arguments, PolyOne’s primary assertion as it relates to the EBAs is that language found in § 12.1 and § 16.4 of the EBAs specifically limits the availability of retiree health benefits to the duration of the EBAs. Unlike the district court—which adopted this line of reasoning—we are not persuaded. As previously explained with regard to the MOA durational clause, “[a]bsent specific durational language referring to retiree benefits themselves” a general durational clause says nothing about the vesting of retiree benefits. Yolton, 435 F.3d at 581. According to our opinion in Yolton, such general durational language only affects future retirees-that is, someone who retired after the expiration of a particular CBA would not be entitled to the previous benefits, but is rather entitled only to those benefits newly negotiated under a new CBA. Thus, the retirement package available to someone contemplating retirement will change with the expiration and adoption of CBAs, but someone already retired under a particular CBA continues to receive the benefits provided therein despite the expiration of the agreement itself. Id. at 581; see also Maurer, 212 F.3d at 917-18 (explaining that “general durational provisions . . . are not clearly meant to include retiree benefits”). In an unpublished case involving language virtually identical to that found in § 12.1 of the EBAs, we concluded that the provision was general in nature and did not preclude a finding that retiree benefits had vested. See Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am. v. Loral Corp., 107 F.3d 11, 1997 WL 49077, at  (6th Cir. 1997) (unpublished table decision). The CBA at issue in Loral contained an introductory clause in the benefits portion of the agreement, which stated: “Effective August 12, 1988, and for the duration of this Agreement thereafter, the Employer will provide the following Program of hospital benefits, hospital-medical benefits, surgical benefits and prescription drug benefits.” Id. There, as here, the employer argued that the introductory clause limited its obligation to provide retiree benefits to the duration of the CBA. Id. And there, as here, we were not persuaded. According to the Loral court, the introductory clause was a general durational provision that did not limit retiree health benefits to the duration of the CBA. See id. at . Similarly, in Weimer v. Kurz-Kasch, Inc., 773 F.2d 669, 675-76 (6th Cir. 1985), this court analyzed a durational provision stating that “this Agreement and all terms and conditions hereof shall terminate as of the end of the term.” The Weimer court held that the quoted language constituted a “general termination clause [that] does not support a finding that retiree benefits ended when the agreements expired.” Id. at 676; see also BVR Liquidating, Inc., 190 F.3d at 774 (finding that retiree health benefits vested notwithstanding an introductory clause stating that benefits would be provided “at no cost to the Employees or retirees for the term of this Agreement”). In this case, § 12.1 of the EBAs states: “Effective as of April 21, 1979 and for the duration of this Agreement, the Company will provide the following plan of hospital expense benefits, hospital-medical benefits, surgical benefits, prescription drug benefits, dental benefits and major medical benefits . . . .” JA at 172. According to PolyOne, this language “specifically limit[s] the No. 07-5068 Noe, et al. v. PolyOne Corp. Page 7 duration of retiree health benefits to the term of the EBAs.” PolyOne’s argument fails, however, because § 12.1’s language is indistinguishable from the language we held to be a general durational provision in Loral and is analogous to that involved in Weimer. As with the durational clauses held to be general in Yolton, Loral, BVR, and Weimer, the language in § 12.1 does not specifically refer to retiree benefits; rather, it refers generically to the benefits available for all employees as well as retirees. Hence, the district court incorrectly held that § 12.1 indicates an intent not to vest retiree health benefits. Aside from the language found in § 12.1, PolyOne also asserts that the introductory statement in Article 2 and the durational language in § 16.4 foreclose Plaintiffs’ claim. For largely the same reasons as those set forth above, we disagree. Section 16.4 states in pertinent part: “Upon termination, this Agreement shall terminate in all respects except that the benefits provided by it shall be extended for ninety (90) days following such termination.” JA at 186. As with § 12.1, nothing in § 16.4 specifically refers to retiree benefits; instead—like the clauses held to be general in the cases previously cited—it refers to all benefits available for all employees, active and retired. Given the lack of any specific reference to “retiree benefits themselves,” Yolton, 435 F.3d at 581, § 16.4 is 1a general durational clause and does not support the district court’s finding in favor of PolyOne. See Maurer, 212 F.3d at 917-18 (finding a CBA clause providing that benefits shall remain in effect until midnight on the CBA’s expiration date to be a general durational provision because it was “not clearly meant to include retiree benefits.”); see also United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of Am., AFL-CIO v. Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp., 873 F. Supp. 1093, 1100-01 (M.D. Tenn. 1994) (holding that a clause identical in all respects to § 16.4 was a general durational provision and did not establish that retiree health benefits terminate ninety-days after the expiration of the CBA.) Looking to the introductory language of Article 2, it is also a general durational clause. Article 2 states in pertinent part: “This Agreement constitutes a settlement for the duration of this Agreement of all retirement, pension, insurance, survivor income benefits, supplemental workers’ compensation, drugs and severance pay demands . . . .” JA at 495. This language from Article 2 refers to all benefits; it does not specifically limit the duration of retiree health benefits as required by Yolton and its progeny. PolyOne’s argument that this general language indicates that Plaintiffs’ health benefits were not intended to vest fails. The dissent erroneously suggests that by deeming the durational provisions to be general in nature, we have in some way turned the Yard-Man inference into a presumption of vesting that may only be overcome by a “clear statement” that retiree benefits were not intended to vest. Dis. Op. at 15. Such is not the case. The dissent also fails to recognize that requiring specific language 1 Furthermore, a close reading of § 16.4 suggests that the purpose of the clause was not to limit the duration of retiree health benefits; rather, it was to provide active employees with health benefits for a ninety-day period in the event that the company and the union could not agree to an extension of the agreement. Essentially, § 16.4 continues benefits for active employees on a temporary basis in the event of a strike or a situation where employees continued to work without a contract. See United Steel Workers of Am., AFL-CIO v. Titan Tire Corp., 359 F. Supp.2d 819, 822 (S.D. Iowa 2005). In Titan—pursuant to the same language found in § 16.4—benefits were provided to striking employees for the specified ninety-day period. Id. at 822. Contrary to the reasoning set forth in the dissent, such a context is clearly the one in which § 16.4 was meant to apply instead of situations like that involved here. Simply because § 16.4 uses the word “benefits”—albeit in the most generic sense of the word and in a completely different context—the dissent latches on to it as support for the proposition that this is a specific durational provision. Dis. Op. at 2. To say that this provision, which never mentions the word “retirement” or “retiree,” and is not found in the portion of the EBAs addressing retiree benefits, constitutes a specific durational clause is a stretch of the sort that we are unwilling and unable—as a panel—to make under our precedent. See Weimer, 773 F.2d at 676 (finding a durational clause that stated “all terms and conditions” of the agreement expired on the expiration of the CBA to be general because it failed “to specify that retiree insurance benefits” terminated with the CBA). For an example of a true specific durational clause, see Senn v. United Dominion Indus., Inc., 951 F.2d 806, 815 (7th Cir. 1992), where the durational clause in question “explicitly provided that retiree insurance coverage would terminate” upon the expiration of the CBA. No. 07-5068 Noe, et al. v. PolyOne Corp. Page 8 referring to retiree health benefits in order for a durational clause to be characterized as “specific” is not the same thing as requiring specific anti-vesting language in a CBA; rather, it simply means that the entire case cannot be resolved on the basis of a durational clause that fails to reference retiree health benefits as is required by our case law. See Yolton 435 F.3d at 581. As this court has held time and time again when confronted with similar provisions, general durational clauses of the sort found in the EBAs do not resolve the vesting issue, and it is necessary to determine if any provisions in the agreements shed light on whether the parties intended for Plaintiffs’ health benefits to vest. See, e.g., Maurer, 212 F.3d at 917-18; Weimer, 783 F.2d at 676; Loral, 1997 WL 49077, at . It is to that question that we now turn our attention. 3. The EBAs Indicate an Intent to Vest Plaintiffs’ Health Benefits Because the durational clauses relied on by PolyOne do not preclude a finding that Plaintiffs’ health benefits have vested, we look to other provisions of the EBAs to determine whether the parties intended Plaintiffs’ health benefits to vest. Contrary to the district court’s holding, several provisions in the EBAs and decisions of this court support Plaintiffs’ argument that their health benefits have vested. a. Tying Eligibility for Retiree Health Benefits to Eligibility for a Pension According to this court, language in an agreement that ties eligibility for retiree health benefits to eligibility for a pension indicates an intent to vest the health benefits. See McCoy v. Meridian Auto. Sys., Inc., 390 F.3d2417, 422 (6th Cir. 2004); see also Golden v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., 73 F.3d 648, 656 (6th Cir. 1996). In McCoy, the agreement between the parties stated: “The Company shall contribute the full premium or subscription charge for Health Care . . . for (i) a retired employee (including any eligible dependents) provided such retired employee is eligible for benefits under Article II of the Company’s Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan.” McCoy, 390 F.3d at 419. After outlining the applicable law under Yard-Man and its progeny, the McCoy court held that because the CBA provision “ties eligibility for retirement-health benefits to eligibility for a pension . . . there is little room for debate that retirees’ health benefits vested upon retirement.” Id. at 390. Likewise, the Golden court found an intent to vest retiree health benefits because there were “provisions in each of the CBAs . . . which tie retiree and surviving spouse eligibility for health insurance coverage to eligibility for vested pension benefits.” Golden, 73 F.3d at 656; see also Yolton, 435 F.3d at 580 (citing Golden for the proposition that tying eligibility for retiree health benefits to eligibility for pension benefits indicates an intent to vest). Applying the teaching of McCoy and Golden in the present case leads inescapably to the conclusion that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for PolyOne. Looking to the EBAs, several provisions tie eligibility for retiree health benefits directly to eligibility for pension benefits by using language that is indistinguishable from that involved in McCoy. Section 12.14 of the EBAs provides in pertinent part: “Employees who retire and who are eligible under the 1979 Employee Benefit Agreement for a Pension (other than a Deferred Vested Pension), shall receive the benefits described in this Article.” JA at 184 (emphasis added). Another section of the EBAs also ties eligibility for retiree health benefits to eligibility for a pension. In § 12.7(k), the EBAs state: 2 The dissent is correct that in both Golden and McCoy this court was reviewing a district court’s preliminary injunction decision under the abuse of discretion standard. However, given the unequivocal nature of those decisions—especially McCoy—such a distinction is one without a difference. Undoubtedly, when the McCoy court stated that by tying “eligibility for retirement-health benefits to eligibility for a pension . . . [the parties left] little room for debate that the retiree’s health benefits vested upon retirement,” 390 F.3d at 422, it made a broad pronouncement of law. A pronouncement that we believe applies regardless of whether this type of case reaches us on appeal from a preliminary injunction decision or from the grant of summary judgment. It is somewhat difficult to see why such tying language would leave “little room for debate” that retiree benefits were intended to vest in McCoy, yet suddenly be the source of much debate here simply because we are reviewing a district court’s summary judgment decision. No. 07-5068 Noe, et al. v. PolyOne Corp. Page 9 “Employees who retire and who are eligible under this Agreement for a pension (other than a Deferred Vested Pension), shall receive the Major Medical Benefits described in this Paragraph 12.7. . . . “ JA at 181 (emphasis added). Lending even more support to the argument that the EBAs tie retiree health benefits to pension benefits is the fact that a key retiree health provision refers to retirees covered by the provision as “Pensioners.” See § 12.5(h), JA at 185. Without citing any authority, the district court disregarded the significance of this tying language because it “focuses upon an employee’s eligibility for benefits rather than upon the duration of those benefits.” Noe, 2006 WL 3759601, at . Such a statement contradicts McCoy and Golden, both of which found vesting based on provisions that used the word “eligibility.” See McCoy, 390 F.3d at 422 (explaining that there was evidence of an intent to vest “[b]ecause the Supplemental Agreement ties eligibility for retirement-health benefits to eligibility for a pension.”) (emphasis added); see also Golden, 73 F.3d at 656 (explaining that “provisions in each of the CBAs at issue . . . tie retiree and surviving spouse eligibility for health insurance cover to eligibility for vested pension benefits.”) (emphasis added). It is evident that the district court failed to appreciate that by tying the eligibility for retiree health benefits to the eligibility for a pension, the EBAs were actually speaking to the duration of the benefits. As we explained in Golden, “[s]ince retirees are eligible to receive pension benefits for life,” the act of tying retiree health benefits to pension eligibility indicates “that the parties intended that the company provide lifetime health benefits as well.” Golden, 73 F.3d at 656 (explaining why the district court in Golden correctly focused on the presence of tying language). Here, the EBAs undoubtedly tie eligibility for retiree health coverage to eligiblity for a pension, which is evidence of an intent to vest. b. The EBAs’ Promise of a Lifetime Special Medicare Benefit Aside from tying eligibility for retiree health benefits to eligibility for a pension, which in and of itself suggests an intent to vest, there are other provisions in the EBAs that indicate under our case law that Plaintiffs’ health benefits were intended to vest. Section 12.15(h) of the EBA states: Subject to the provisions of this Paragraph 12.15(h), a Special Medicare Benefit will be paid to . . . (ii) a Pensioner who retires on or after April 21, 1979, or (iii) such Pensioner’s or Employee’s surviving spouse, if such Employee, Pensioner or surviving spouse is covered for Medical Benefits under this Article 12. (1) The Special Medicare Benefit will be equal to the standard monthly premium for Part B of Medicare . . . (2) The Special Medicare Benefit will be payable when an individual attains age sixty-five (65) or, for an individual less than age sixty-five (65), when he enrolls for Part B of Medicare . . . (3) Payment shall commence on the first day of the month following (i) the month during which the individual attains age sixty-five (65) . . . The payment of such Benefit shall continue until the individual’s death . . . (5) Upon the death of a Pensioner or Employee, the Special Medicare Benefit will be paid to his surviving spouse if such spouse is eligible to receive Medical Benefits under this Article 12. Such surviving spouse shall continue to receive the Special Medicare Benefit until such spouse remarries, dies or is no longer eligible for Part B of Medicare. JA at 185 (emphasis added). As the italicized language makes clear, § 12.15(h) promises that once a retiree reaches age sixty-five he or she will receive the Special Medicare Benefit until death. And upon death, the retiree’s surviving spouse will continue to receive the Special Medicare Benefit until his or her death or remarriage. No. 07-5068 Noe, et al. v. PolyOne Corp. Page 10 When confronted with similar language in the past, we have held that it establishes an intent to vest3retiree health benefits. See Policy v. Powell Pressed Steel Co., 770 F.2d 609, 615 (6th Cir. 1985). In Policy, the CBA provided: “When said Pensioner reaches age 65, the Company will provide such Pensioner, at the Company’s expense, supplemental medicare and major medical benefits. The Company will continue to provide at its expense, supplemental medicare and major medical benefits for Pensioners aged 65 and over.” Id. Reversing the district court’s conclusion that the retirees’ benefits were not vested, Policy explained that the language of the supplemental medicare provision “unambiguously confers the stated health insurance benefits for the duration of the retiree’s life.” Id. (emphasis added). The Policy court’s determination finds support in the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Bidlack v. Wheelabrator Corp., 993 F.2d 603, 608 (7th Cir. 1993) (en banc), where Judge Posner, writing for the en banc court, explained that a similar provision could reasonably “be thought a promise to retired employees that they and their spouses will be covered for the rest of their lives. For the provision does not say ‘when they die or the collective bargaining agreement expires, whichever occurs first,’ but simply when they die.” As with the provision involved in Policy, § 12.15(h)(3) promises to provide a Special Medicare Benefit from age sixty-five “until the individual’s death.” We are in agreement with Policy, that promising to provide a benefit until a person dies undoubtedly means that the benefit lasts for the person’s life. It is likewise clear to us that § 12.15(h)(5)’s promise to provide the surviving spouse of a retiree with a Medicare supplement until he or she remarries or “dies” is a promise that the spouse of a retiree is entitled to lifetime benefits unless he or she remarries. See generally Loral, 1997 WL 49077, at  (concluding that language providing the spouse of a deceased retiree with benefits “until death or remarriage” indicates that such benefits have vested). Furthermore, adopting PolyOne’s argument that Plaintiffs’ retiree benefits have not vested would render portions of § 12.15(h) nugatory, and the promises contained therein illusory, in violation of Yard-Man and its progeny. See Yard-Man, 716 F.2d at 1480 (explaining that courts must construe CBA provisions “so as to render none nugatory and avoid illusory promises”). With regard to the analogous provision in Policy, this court explained that to interpret such a benefits provision as terminating at the end of the relevant CBA would create an illusory promise to those retirees who would not reach age sixty-five before the CBA’s expiration. Policy, 770 F.2d at 615. According to Policy, the promise would be illusory because: if a sixty-two year old employee with twenty years service retired on January 1, 1982, eight months before the collective bargaining agreement expired, and if the Company were correct in contending that the retiree’s health insurance benefits ceased with the August 31, 1982, expiration of such agreement, then the Company’s promise to provide supplemental Medicare . . . to the retiree when he reached age sixty-five would be of no value. Id.; see also Bailey v. AK Steel Corp., No. 1:06cv468, 2006 WL 2727732, at  (S.D. Ohio Sept. 22, 2006) (examining a similar Medicare supplement provision for retirees and concluding that the promise establishes an intent to vest because otherwise it would be illusory for many individuals who retired as young as age fifty-five). The same conclusion was reached in Yard-Man, where the 3 PolyOne repeatedly cites Policy v. Powell Pressed Steel Corp., 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18650 (N.D. Ohio March 14, 1984), in its brief as support for its argument that Plaintiffs’ health benefits have not vested. See Appellee’s Br. at 39, 41, 42. However, PolyOne neglects to ever mention that the district court’s decision on which it relies so heavily was actually vacated and remanded by this court on appeal. See Policy, 770 F.2d at 618. Our decision in Policy specifically rejected the language that PolyOne quotes in bold print at page 42 of its brief as support for the argument that the provisions in the EBAs promising certain benefits until a deceased retiree’s death or remarriage did not evince an intent to vest retiree health benefits. See id. at 615 (finding that to construe a provision conferring health insurance benefits for the duration of the retiree’s life as not providing vested benefits would render the promise “in substantial part nugatory and illusory”). No. 07-5068 Noe, et al. v. PolyOne Corp. Page 11 CBA promised to provide certain benefits to retirees when they reached age sixty-five. Yard-Man, 716 F.2d at 1481 (explaining that if retiree benefits expired at the end of the CBA then the promise to provide certain benefits at age sixty-five “is completely illusory for many early retirees under age 62”); see also Maurer, 212 F.3d at 918 (explaining that, “[b]ecause the CBAs permit retirement at age 55 and promise insurance at age 65, the promise is meaningless if it could be terminated in three years”). Similar to the provisions in Policy, Yard-Man, and Maurer, § 12.15(h) promises that upon the attainment of age sixty-five the company will begin to provide the Special Medicare Benefit to retirees. However, as in Maurer, employees of BFG could retire as early as age fifty-five under the company’s early retirement plan. See § 4.2, JA at 194. For such early retirees, the promise of the Special Medicare Benefit is rendered illusory under the interpretation urged by PolyOne. See JA at 194, § 4.2. Likewise, § 12.15(h)’s promise to provide the spouse of a deceased retiree with the Special Medicare Benefit until his or her death or remarriage would be rendered illusory were this court to agree with the district court and PolyOne. Under PolyOne’s interpretation, the spouse of an individual who retired early at age fifty-five and passed away at age fifty-seven would never receive the promised Special Medicare Benefit even though he or she remained alive and never remarried. Looking to another provision of the EBAs, § 12.14 also promises health benefits to the surviving spouse of a retiree until the spouse’s death or remarriage. According to § 12.14: The surviving spouse of an Employee who is retired by the Company on or after the effective date of this Agreement shall continue to be eligible to receive such benefits to the earlier of the date of death or remarriage, provided such spouse, as of the date of death of such retired former Employee, was covered for these benefits as an eligible dependent . . . . JA at 184 (emphasis added). Accepting PolyOne’s interpretation would require this court to rewrite § 12.14 to say that the spouse of a deceased retiree “shall continue to be eligible to receive such benefits to the earlier of the date of death or remarriage, or the expiration of this agreement.” No such limiting language is found in § 12.14, and courts should not add words to a contract under the guise of construing it. See Richard A. Lord, Williston on Contracts § 31:5 (4th ed. 2007); see also Bidlack, 993 F.2d at 608 (explaining that such a provision does not say retiree benefits will be provided to surviving spouses “‘when they die or the collective bargaining agreement expires, whichever occurs first’ but simply when they die”). As with the promises made in § 12.15(h), holding that Plaintiffs’ health benefits have not vested would render § 12.14’s promise of health benefits until death or remarriage illusory for the spouses of deceased retirees in violation of precedent. 4. Presence of Specific Vesting Language in Pension Provision Next, PolyOne argues that the fact that the EBAs used explicit vesting language with regard to pension benefits leads to the conclusion that the absence of such explicit vesting language in the retiree health benefits provisions indicates that they have not vested. The district court was persuaded by this argument, noting that Article 6 of the EBA “contains strong language stating that pension payments shall be payable monthly ‘during the life of such Employee, the last payment thereof being payable for the month in which he dies.’” Noe, 2006 WL 3759601, at  (quoting § 6.1(a) of the EBA, JA at 197). According to the district court, the absence of such language in the retiree health benefits portion of the EBAs suggests that the parties did not intend for them to vest. However, the district court neglected to notice the similarity between § 6.1(a)’s language and that found in § 12.15(h), which provides that the Special Medicare Benefit will commence when the No. 07-5068 Noe, et al. v. PolyOne Corp. Page 12 retiree reaches age sixty-five and “[t]he payment of such Benefit shall continue until the individual’s death.” JA at 185. In our opinion, § 6.1(a)’s promise to pay a monthly pension “during the life of such employee” is indistinguishable from § 12.15(h)’s promise to pay the Special Medicare Benefit “until the individual’s death.” It is axiomatic that promising to provide a benefit for an individual’s life (§ 6.1(a)) is the functional equivalent of promising to provide a benefit until an individual’s death (§ 12.15(h)). Any argument to the contrary is mere semantics and defies common sense. In the same vein, PolyOne asserts that the presence in § 8.5 of language specifically indicating that pension benefits survive the expiration of the EBAs, and the absence of such language with regard to retiree health benefits demonstrates that Plaintiffs’ health benefits have not vested. Section 8.5 states: “No Pension or other benefit granted prior to the time of such termination shall be reduced, suspended or discontinued except as specifically provided in this Pension Plan.” JA at 201. The force of this argument is blunted first by the provisions discussed above that under our precedent do indicate an intent to vest, and second by the existence of various provisions in the EBAs that have specific termination language, whereas the retiree health benefits provisions have none. The presence of specific durational language in other provisions and its absence in the retiree health benefits provisions suggests an intent to vest under our case law. See Yard-Man, 716 F.2d at 1481-82. Here, there are several provisions that contain the specific durational provisions referred to by Yard-Man. First, § 12.9 explains that in the event of a layoff an employee shall receive health coverage for three months following the date of lay-off. JA at 220-21. Second, § 12.10 specifies that an employee who is terminated because of a plant closure is entitled to medical benefits under the EBAs for a twenty-four month period. Id. Third, § 12.11 states that an employee on an authorized leave of absence shall receive health coverage for “a period not to exceed three (3) months.” Id. The inclusion of specific durational language “in other provisions of the current collective bargaining agreement suggests that retiree benefits, not so specifically limited, were intended to survive the expiration of successive agreements.” Yard-Man, 716 F.2d at 1481-82; see also Yolton, 435 F.3d at 582 (discussing, with approval, the district court’s citation of specific durational provisions in the CBAs for laid-off employees and those on maternity leave as evidence that retiree benefits vested under Yard-Man). Thus, these arguments, essentially predicated on the expressio unius est exclusio alterius canon of interpretation, work to the benefit and detriment of each party. Accordingly, the language in § 8.5 offers little support for PolyOne’s argument that Plaintiffs’ health benefits were not intended to vest. This is especially true given the various provisions discussed above that indicate an intent to vest Plaintiffs’ health benefits.4 4 Given our conclusion that the plain language of the EBAs indicates an intent to vest retiree health benefits, the consideration of extrinsic evidence is unnecessary. However, we pause to note that our interpretation of the EBAs finds considerable support in the available extrinsic evidence. See, e.g., Affidavit of Anna May Wilder, JA at 104-05 (“When I began receiving the BFGoodrich health insurance benefits after my husband’s death, I was told that it would be paid ‘like it is’ for my life by the woman who helped me. That person was a representative of BF Goodrich Company.”); Affidavit of William Duncan, Jr., JA at 113-14 (“When I retired I spoke with Karen Hicks. She told me at that time that the only loss I would have by retiring would be a partial loss of my life insurance.”); Deposition of Kimberly K. Reilly, JA at 595 (indicating that while employed in BFG’s human resources department she instructed retirees consistent with her training that their health benefits would be provided for the rest of their life). This type of extrinsic evidence was held to be evidence of vesting in Yolton. See Yolton, 435 F.3d at 583. Looking to the extrinsic evidence relied on by PolyOne, we are unconvinced that the letter of Ms. Allison Beck, Assistant General Counsel to the Machinist’s Union, casts any doubt on our conclusion that the EBAs indicate an intent to vest. As Plaintiffs point out, the letter contains a general statement of law that, unlike pension benefits, retiree health benefits may be altered upon the expiration of the applicable CBA. The letter indicates that Ms. Beck was speaking in generic terms and not on the basis of the contractual language of the EBAs involved in this case. Ms. Beck is correct that nothing in ERISA prevents an employer from terminating retiree health benefits at the end of a CBA; however, under our case law termination of health benefits is forbidden when—as here—the language of the agreements themselves indicates an intent to provide No. 07-5068 Noe, et al. v. PolyOne Corp. Page 13 As the foregoing analysis makes clear, there is nothing earth-shattering about our holding in this case; it is merely the straightforward application of this circuit’s case law.5 The dissent’s contention that we have turned Yard-Man into some sort of a presumption in favor of vesting is premised on a misreading of the court’s opinion. One can search this opinion in vain for any indication—or even a suggestion—that we presume retiree health benefits were intended to vest absent a clear statement to the contrary. All we have done today is follow the instructions of YardMan and its progeny by examining the provisions of the EBAs and applying traditional principles of contract interpretation to ascertain whether the parties intended to vest retiree health benefits. See Yard-Man, 716 F.2d at 1479-80. While the dissent is correct that—beginning with Yard-Man—this court has approached the vesting issue differently than have many of our sister circuits, this panel is not at liberty to cast aside nearly twenty-four years of precedent in order to charter a new course, no matter how desirable that new course may be. Having addressed the EBAs and explained why the district court erred in granting summary judgment for PolyOne, we proceed now to analyze whether Plaintiff Hood’s health benefits under the Flex Program have vested.