Smith v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 5738
| Decision Date | 31 October 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 5738,5738 |
| Citation | 246 A.2d 697,109 N.H. 172 |
| Parties | Shirley F. SMITH v. NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Frederic T. Greenhalge, Concord, (by brief) for plaintiff.
McLane, Carleton, Graf, Greene & Brown and Jack B. Middleton and Arthur A. Greene, Jr., Manchester, for defendant.
Action to recover amounts claimed to be due for accident benefits under a 'Plan for Employees Pensions, Disability Benefits and Death Benefits' instead of sickness benefits as determined by a committee provided for by the plan.
Defendant's motion to dismiss on the ground that the committee's determination is conclusive was denied by the Trial Court. The defendant's exception to the ruling was transferred by Bownes, J.
The defendant established the 'Plan' in 1913. It is financed entirely at the defendant's expense without contribution by the employees. It provides greater benefits for disability resulting from accident than for that resulting from sickness. By section 3(3) the committee, composed entirely of vice presidents of the defendant, appointed by its board of directors, is given authority to 'determine conclusively for all parties all questions arising in the administration of the Plan.'
The plaintiff who had been employed for 19 years by the defendant had received sickness disability benefits under the plan from February 1964 to February 1965 and since them has received a sickness disability pension also under the plan. Plaintiff requested that she be awarded accident disability benefits rather than sickness disability benefits. Her request was denied by the committee. Her declaration alleges that the committee 'wrongfully' paid and continues to pay her sickness benefits.
The plaintiff states in her brief that the central issue is 'whether she has a right to litigate what she considers the arbitrary and capricious refusal of the Committee to award her accident disability benefits.' We confine our opinion to this claim.
We hold section 3(3) of the plan does not bar an employee from seeking relief in the courts from arbitrary and capricious action by the committee. See Annot. 42 A.L.R.2d 461.
At the hearing on the motion to dismiss the Trial Judge asked counsel for the plaintiff if he had any evidence of 'malicious, capricious or arbitrary or wrongful conduct on the part of the board.' Counsel replied that the only evidence he had was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pierre v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Company/Life Ins. Co. of North America
...plan administrators when the terms of the instrument provided for discretionary authority. Id. See, e.g., Smith v. New England Tele. & Tel. Co., 109 N.H. 172, 246 A.2d 697, 698 (1968).5 In Lowry v. Bankers Life and Cas. Retirement Plan, 871 F.2d 522, 525 n. 5 (5th Cir.1989), we noted that w......
-
Davis v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 9305
...Bell Tel. and Tel. Co. (Ky.) 322 S.W.2d 95; Lano v. Rochester Germicide Co., 261 Minn. 556, 113 N.W.2d 460; Smith v. New England Tel. and Tel. Co., 109 N.H. 172, 246 A.2d 697; Teren v. First National Bank, 243 Or. 251, 412 P.2d 794. Texas has taken a strong position upholding the action of ......
-
Wyper v. Providence Washington Ins. Co.
...the particular pension plan provided that the decision of the pension board was to be "conclusive," see Smith v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co., 109 N.H. 172, 246 A.2d 697 (1968); Menke v. Thompson, 140 F.2d 786, 791-92 (8 Cir. 1944), or that the trustees had "full authority" to dete......
-
Jones v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co.
...Greyhound Lines, Inc., 488 F.2d 278 (5th Cir.1974); Moore v. Adkins, 2 Kan.App.2d 139, 576 P.2d 245 (1978); Smith v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 109 N.H. 172, 246 A.2d 697 (1968); Chavez v. Sandia Corp., 89 N.M. 578, 555 P.2d 699, (1976); McHorse v. Portland Gen. Electric Co., 268 Or. 323,......