United States Second Circuit

Judgment dismissing plaintiffs' class action claims for clarification of the benefits to which they might be entitled in the future under their ERISA plan is: 1) affirmed with regard to plaintiffs' claims relating to improper amendment, where plaintiffs have not alleged an improper amendment because defendant's actions did not constitute an amendment within the meaning of 29 USC section 1054(g); and 2) vacated and remanded on plaintiff Kirkendall's remaining claims, because when a plaintiff reasonably interprets a plan's terms not to require exhaustion of her administrative remedies and does not exhaust her remedies as a result, she is not required to exhaust her administrative remedies.

Appellate Information

• Decided 01/29/2013
• Published 01/29/2013

Judges

• STRAUB

Court

• United States Second Circuit

Counsel