Conkright v. Frommert
| Decision Date | 20 January 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 08-810.,08-810. |
| Citation | 130 S.Ct. 1640,176 L. Ed. 2d 469 |
| Parties | Sally L. CONKRIGHT, et al., Petitioners, v. Paul J. FROMMERT et al. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
Robert A. Long, Jr., Washington, DC, for Petitioners.
Peter K. Stris, Costa Mesa, CA, for Respondents.
Matthew D. Roberts, for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the Respondents.
Ivy Thomas McKinney, Michael D. Ryan, Xerox Corporation, Norwalk, CT, Margaret A. Clemens, Littler Mendelson, Rochester, NY, Robert A. Long, Jr., Robert D. Wick, Richard C. Shea, Robert S. Newman, Jonathan L. Marcus, Christian J. Pistilli, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC, for Petitioners.
Shaun P. Martin, University of San Diego, School of Law, San Diego, CA, Peter K. Stris, Costa Mesa, CA, John A. Strain, Law Offices of John A. Strain, Manhattan Beach, CA, Brendan S. Maher, Stris & Maher LLP, Dallas, TX, for Respondents.
Michael D. Ryan, Xerox Corporation, Norwalk, CT, Margaret A. Clemens, Nixon Peabody LLP, Rochester, NY, Robert A. Long, Jr., Robert D. Wick, Richard C. Shea, Robert S. Newman, Jonathan L. Marcus, Christian J. Pistilli, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC, for Petitioners.
People make mistakes. Even administrators of ERISA plans. That should come as no surprise, given that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 is "an enormously complex and detailed statute," Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 262, 113 S.Ct. 2063, 124 L.Ed.2d 161 (1993), and the plans that administrators must construe can be lengthy and complicated. (The one at issue here runs to 81 pages, with 139 sections.) We held in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989), that an ERISA plan administrator with discretionary authority to interpret a plan is entitled to deference in exercising that discretion. The question here is whether a single honest mistake in plan interpretation justifies stripping the administrator of that deference for subsequent related interpretations of the plan. We hold that it does not.
I
As in many ERISA matters, the facts of this case are exceedingly complicated. Fortunately, most of the factual details are unnecessary to the legal issues before us, so we cover them only in broad...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramos v. Bank of Am.
...benefits was reasonable. Winters v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 49 F.3d 550, 553 (9th Cir.1995); see also Conkright v. Frommert, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1640, 1651, 176 L.Ed.2d 469 (2010). An ERISA administrator abuses its discretion only if it renders a decision without explanation, construes......
-
Haisley v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Serv. Inc.
...Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 128 S.Ct. 2343, 171 L.Ed.2d 299 (2008), and Conkright v. Frommert, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1640, 176 L.Ed.2d 469 (2010). In Firestone Tire, the Supreme Court observed that the ERISA did not contain specific language establishing a jud......
-
Conkright v. Frommert
...U.S. 506130 S.Ct. 1640176 L.Ed.2d 469Sally L. CONKRIGHT, et al., Petitioners,v.Paul J. FROMMERT et al. No. 08–810.Supreme Court of the United StatesArgued Jan. 20, 2010.Decided April 21, 2010.Robert A. Long, Jr., Washington, DC, for Petitioners.Peter K. Stris, Costa Mesa, CA, for Respondent......
-
Griffin v. N.Y. State Nurses Ass'n Pension Plan
...under a conflict of interest, there is no change in the standard of review from deferential to de novo. Conkright v. Frommert, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1640, 1647, 176 L.Ed.2d 469 (2010); see also Durakovic v. Bldg. Serv. 32 BJ Pension Fund, 609 F.3d 133 n. 2 (2d Cir.2010) (for actions unde......