Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Supreme Court: SPDs are not legally binding contracts. In what has been characterized as a “partial victory” for CIGNA, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded CIGNA Corp. v. Amara back to the lower court this week. The case focused upon CIGNA’s 1998 retirement plan conversion from a traditional defined benefit pension plan into a cash balance plan. Employees sued, claiming the summary plan description (SPD) was misleading and that the misleading communication caused them financial harm. According to the decision issued this week, the 27,000 CIGNA employees affected by the plan conversion may be entitled to relief under ERISA rules, but not under the provision applied by the federal court. Myron Rumeld, an employee benefits attorney, explained that the ruling will set a precedent limiting employees’ abilities to seek “equitable relief” based upon their understanding of SPDs, rather than the actual terms of the plan itself.


Join BenefitsPRO

Don’t miss crucial news and insights you need to navigate the shifting employee benefits industry. Join BenefitsPRO.com now!

  • Unlimited access to BenefitsPRO.com - your roadmap to thriving in a disrupted environment
  • Access to other award-winning ALM websites including ThinkAdvisor.com and Law.com
  • Exclusive discounts on BenefitsPRO.com and ALM events.

Already have an account? Sign In Now
Join BenefitsPRO

Copyright © 2019 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.