ALDOUS

v.

ALDOUS

Citator

Cited By (24 total)

• Young v. Standard OIL (Indiana) & Amoco Oil Co., 849 F.2d 1039 (7th Cir. 1988)
  …e F & P division but then released. This, as defendants point out, is an impermissible attack on the substantive merits of the severance plan. See Moore v. Reynolds Metals Co. Retirement Program, 740 F. 2d 454, 456 n. 4 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109, 105 S.Ct. 786, 83 L.Ed.2d 780 (1985) (courts are not permitted to modify language of a benefit plan). We conclude, based on the evidence presented to the Amoco plan administrator, there was no issue of fact whether plaintiffs were offered employme…
• Berlin v. Mich. Bell Tel. Co., 858 F.2d 1154 (6th Cir. 1988)
  …d 951, 955-56 (9th Cir.1987), terminating a pension plan, Cunha v. Ward Foods, Inc., 804 F. 2d 1418, 1432 (9th Cir.1986), and deciding whether or not to establish a plan, Moore v. Reynolds Metals Co., 740 F. 2d 454, 456 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109, 105 S.Ct. 786, 83 L.Ed.2d 780 (1985), have all been found nonfiduciary. Several courts have, however, held that misleading communications to plan participants regarding plan administration (for example, eligibility under a plan, the extent of bene…
• Varhola v. DOE, 820 F.2d 809 (6th Cir. 1987)
  …capricious” standard to the review of decisions by plan administrators under ERISA to deny benefits to particular claimants. See Moore v. Reynolds Metals Co. Retirement Program for Salaried Employees, 740 F. 2d 454, 457 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109, 105 S.Ct. 786, 83 L.Ed.2d 780 (1985) (“[R]eview ... is limited to a determination of whether the trustees’ actions in administering or interpreting a plan’s provisions are arbitrary and capricious.”); Van Gunten v. Central States, Southeast & South…