Opinion ID: 164993
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the Plan Provide for Vesting Upon Plan Termination?

Text: 24 The initial LTD plan contained a provision which stated, [t]ermination of this policy under any conditions will not prejudice any payable claim which occurs while this policy is in force. Aplt's App. vol. I, at 63. The magistrate judge found that this provision constituted a contractual promise to vest benefits in the event of the plan's termination. See Aplt's App. vol. II, at 574 (reasoning that a reasonable person in the position of [Ms. Welch] would read the termination provision in the [initial] plan ... as allowing UNUM/Coleman to change the terms of the plan, but if the plan terminates, her disability benefits may not be prejudiced, e.g., reduced or withdrawn, if she had a `payable claim' before the plan was terminated). Subsequently, the magistrate found that the enactment of Amendment 23 caused the plan to terminate, triggering the vesting of Ms. Welch's benefits, such that it was improper for UNUM to retroactively apply Amendment 23 to limit Ms. Welch's disability benefits. Id. at 576-77. Because we hold, as discussed below, that the initial LTD plan did not terminate, it is unnecessary for us to decide whether or not the plan's termination clause included the clear and express language necessary to guarantee the contractual vesting of a welfare benefit. Chiles, 95 F.3d at 1513 (internal quotation marks omitted). 25