The Supreme Court stated on May 16, 2011, “We cannot agree that the terms of statutorily required plan summaries may be enforced as the terms of the plan itself.” This holding has a significant impact upon the enforceability of ERISA Reimbursement claims which have traditionally been based upon the terms set forth in Summary Plan Descriptions. This article, co-authored with Marilyn Trefz, is in the process of being published in journals sponsored by various State Associations for Justice (Minnesota, Nevada, South Dakota, North Dakota, Kansas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Nebraska and Ohio.) Our article, as published by the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys, Summer 2o11, is available here.
(download by clicking here Impact of Cigna v Amara on ERISA Reimbursement Claims, Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys, Summer 2011)