Surviving Spouse Plan Requirements Cannot be Changed
by Oral Representation
March 17, 2008 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - The 5th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling that a
pension plan administrator was correct in denying surviving
spouse benefits to a widow not legally married to the
deceased participant at the time of his retirement.
The appellate court held that the district court
properly granted summary judgment for the Pension Fund
because its administrator did not abuse his discretion
when he determined that Marian and George Robinson were
not legally married when George retired. The appellate
court said the district court correctly concluded that it
was unreasonable for Marian to rely on an oral
representation that the "Designation of
Beneficiary" would make her a qualified spouse under
the plan.
According to the opinion, it was unreasonable for
Marian "to rely on the oral statements that purportedly
modified the clear definition of "qualified spouse" in
the plan's terms." The plan dictates that a qualified
spouse is a spouse who was legally married to the
participant for the 12-month period immediately preceding
the participant's death or annuity starting date.
Marian and George lived together as husband and
wife in Louisiana from 1978 until their legal marriage in
1996. George had retired from his job as a longshoreman
in 1984. Sometime immediately following their legal
union, a representative from the New Orleans Employers
ILA AFL-CIO Pension Welfare Vacation & Holiday Funds
told Marian and George that if George signed a
"Designation of Beneficiary" naming Marian as the sole
beneficiary under his pension plan, then the Pension Fund
would consider Marian to be a qualified spouse.
George died in November of 2004, and Marian applied
for surviving spouse benefits. When her request was
denied she appealed the decision to the Pension Fund
trustees, who confirmed the denial.
Marian filed suit asking a district court to
recognize her relationship with George prior to their
legal marriage as a common law marriage. However, the
district court pointed out that Louisiana does not
recognize common law marriages. In addition, Marian
argued that she and George relied to their detriment on
the statements made to them by the Pension Fund
representative, but the court found this to be
unreasonable.
The opinion in Robinson v. New Orleans Employers
ILA AFL-CIO Pension Welfare Vacation & Holiday Funds
is
here
.
Rebecca Moore
editors@plansponsor.com