Opinion ID: 786985
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the Injunction is Overbroad

Text: 47 Defendants argue that, even if the district court was within its discretion to grant the preliminary injunction, the terms of that injunction sweep too broadly. They argue that the injunction orders Honeywell to provide a different level of coverage than is stipulated in the Guaranty, and that this court-ordered coverage extends to too many people. On both matters, the issue revolves around difficulties of proof. And on both, we remand and ask the district court to clarify and modify its order. 48 The Guaranty obligates Honeywell to provide for insurance coverage equal to that which would have been available as of April 1, 1976. 8 It further provides that this coverage shall extend to a limited class of persons: (1) those who retired prior to divestiture, (2) those with at least ten years of service prior to divestiture, and (3) surviving spouses of the first two groups. In its September 2003 order granting the preliminary injunction, the district court specifically ordered that: 49 Defendant Honeywell International shall provide or cause to be provided ... the health insurance benefits and prescription drug program in place on August 31, 2002, as outlined in the 1999 Purolator Products Company Medical Plan for Certain Hourly Retirees formerly Employed by the Bendix Corporation for each individual listed as a Bendix Retiree in the March 2002 Mark IV/BAM purchase agreement. 50 Laforest II, 2003 WL 23180220, at . 51 On the issue of whether the district court ordered an incorrect level of coverage, defendants note the facial disparity between the Guaranty's stipulation of 1976-level coverage and the injunction's stipulation of 2002-level coverage. Plaintiffs concede that the Guaranty stipulates coverage equivalent to that provided as of April 1976. The Guaranty expressly states that the guaranteed level of benefits is that provided for in the Insurance Agreement entered into in 1974 — an agreement still in effect in April 1976. The Insurance Agreement, in turn, explains that [t]he scope and level of benefits shall be those outlined in the Bendix Corporation Hourly Segment Benefit Manual under the National Account Program as of August 1, 1974, for all employees as developed by the Indiana Blue Cross-Blue Shield plan. Neither party has been able to locate the Benefit Manual or the National Account Program referenced in the Insurance Agreement. 52 In lieu of this missing evidence, plaintiffs provided the district court with affidavits from eleven covered retirees, each explaining that his or her benefit levels had remained unmodified over the years. Plaintiffs also presented to the court a 1999 plan under which Purolator, a successor of Facet, provided benefits to the retirees in question — a plan expressly limited to persons covered by the Guaranty. Finally, plaintiffs provided the district court with a copy of the Summary Plan Description in place in 1980 (under Facet's watch), permitting the court to compare the level of benefits in 1999 to the level in 1980. After reviewing this evidence, the court determined that the level of benefits provided as of April 1, 1976 was equivalent to the level provided in the 1999 Purolator plan, which was the plan in place in 2002. Defendants do little to rebut this evidence, other than suggest that four of the eleven affidavits mentioned above suffer from defects, including the fact that two of the affiants retired after 1976 and admittedly suffer from memory loss. Nevertheless, because of the facial disparity between the Guaranty and the district court's injunction, we remand this case to the district court to modify the injunction such that it accurately reflects that the guaranteed level of benefits is the level in place on April 1, 1976. 53 In this regard, the district court may wish to engage in further fact-finding as to the 1976 level of benefits. We note that it is not implausible that the 1976 benefit level will comport with the 1999 Purolator plan. Indeed, that there is evidence that they had equivalent cost-sharing mechanisms is highly persuasive. We also find defendants' suggestion that plaintiffs are not entitled to coverage for particular prescriptions or medical advances that did not exist in 1976 to be a strained reading of the Guaranty. The inquiry into the level of benefits to which plaintiffs are entitled surely has a more general answer; if full prescription coverage was available in 1976, then full prescription coverage is the level to which plaintiffs are entitled today. 54 On the issue of whether the district court ordered coverage for too many people, defendants take issue with the court's use of the Bendix Retiree list in the March 2002 Mark IV/BAM purchase agreement. 9 Defendants contend that there has been no showing that the Bendix Retiree list coincides with the categories of persons specifically covered by the Guaranty. Indeed, defendants claim that preliminary investigation reveals that a number of persons on the list are definitely not covered by the Guaranty. According to defendants, these persons include those who have died, voluntarily opted-out of coverage, been deemed ineligible under the Guaranty, and received lump-sum pension benefits. Plaintiffs do not contest that some persons on the list are not eligible for benefits under the Guaranty. Indeed, plaintiffs suggest that they remain open to working with Honeywell and Motor Components to resolve any legitimate eligibility issues. Thus, although we affirm the issuance of the preliminary injunction, we remand so that the district court may make findings of fact as to who is legitimately due the protections of the Guaranty — and modify the injunctive relief accordingly.