Opinion ID: 217949
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Our Disposition is Dictated by Precedent.

Text: Third and finally, we dealt with a similar reservation of rights clause in Chiles, 95 F.3d at 1508. In that case, the Summary Plan Description (SPD) of a long-term disability plan contained a reservation of rights clause that reserved in the employer the right to amend or terminate the long-term disability benefits, except for those who were totally disabled as of the date of termination. Id. at 1509. We held that the reservation of rights clause was unambiguous and precluded the plaintiffs' claim that their rights to long-term disability benefits had contractually vested. Id. at 1512-14. Although in Chiles the plaintiffs claimed that long-term disability benefits had vested and could not be revoked, whereas in this case Plaintiffs concede that Qwest could have terminated the plan, Aplt. Br. 17, the district court correctly noted that our interpretation of a similar reservation of rights clause in Chiles compels a similar disposition here. See Kerber, 544 F.Supp.2d at 1193-94. Plaintiffs advance several arguments on appeal, none of which we find persuasive. First, Plaintiffs argue that at the time the district court dismissed Claim 1, Qwest had not disclosed Appendix 8 to the Plan. Aplt. Br. 21. According to Plaintiffs, the eventual production of Appendix 8 undercuts the district court's order dismissing Claim 1. Id. However, Appendix 8 is nearly the same as Appendix 7, and in any event Appendix 7 not Appendix 8is referenced by subsection 2.6(a). See 3 Aplt. App. 624. Further, Plaintiffs specifically stipulated that the Plan Documents attached to Qwest's Motion to Dismisswhich did not contain Appendix 8comprised the Plan Documents on which their claims were based. See Kerber, 2008 WL 4630558, at . Finally, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion to alter or amend the judgment, but did not raise any arguments relating to Appendix 8. See 13 Aplt.App. 2735. Indeed, in their brief before us, Plaintiffs liken the situation to one where relief would be available from the district court under Rule 60(b). Aplt. Br. 23. But we are not the proper forum for a Rule 60(b) motion. Accordingly, we find no basis for reversal due to the apparent confusion over Appendix 8. See Kerber, 2008 WL 4630558, at -3 (noting that Appendix 8 appeared to be either a mistake or a draft of Appendix 7 never incorporated into the Plan Documents). Second, Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in determining that the Minimum Benefits Clause was tied to the Reduction Formula because the [minimum benefits set forth in Appendix 7] do not even remotely refer to a formula. Aplt. Br. 5. But that argument is simply not correct. As we have explained, the Minimum Benefits Clause incorporates Appendix 7 as providing the applicable numerical minimum dollar amount, see 3 Aplt.App. 624-25, and the Minimum Benefits Clause specifically references the Reduction Formula, id. (Notwithstanding the foregoing....). Thus, the Minimum Benefits Clause is indeed tied to the Plan's age based reduction formula. Aplt. Br. 15. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred by fail[ing] to give specific terms greater weight than general language. Id. at 17. Again, that is simply not the case. Both the Minimum Benefits Clause and the Reservation of Rights Clause speak with roughly equivalent specificity. Compare 3 Aplt.App. 624-25 with 4 Aplt.App. 638. Therefore, we doubt that this principle of contractual interpretation is applicable here. Additionally, Plaintiffs' cited principle of interpretation is helpful only where the specific and general language conflict. See, e.g., Rosillo-Puga v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1147, 1160 (10th Cir. 2009); Shawnee Tribe v. United States, 423 F.3d 1204, 1213 (10th Cir.2005). In this case, the clauses do not conflictthe Minimum Benefits Clause limits reductions under the Reduction Formula, while the Reservation of Rights Clause governs the Plan Documents as a whole. We therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of Claim 1 of the AC.