Moriarity v. United Tech. Corp. Represented Employees Retirement Plan, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 24540 (2^nd Cir. Oct. 2. 1998). Plaintiff worked for United Tech for 21 years until he resigned in 1989. He then applied for Social Security Disability. The Social Security Administration determined that Plaintiff became disabled on March 9, 1992. In 1994, Plaintiff applied for disability benefits under the Defendant Plan. The Defendant Plan denied that he was entitled to benefits since Plaintiff’s employment terminated before Plaintiff became disabled. Plaintiff then exhausted the administrative remedies and sued.

The plan documents states that a Participant is not vested in a disability pension. The plan document also states that participants are entitled to a disability pension if they have ten years of service and receive disability payments from Social Security. The plan document states that a person is no longer a participant if a person is no longer an employee.

The Second Circuit determined that, under the terms of the plan, Plaintiff was no longer a participant when he became disabled and was not entitled to benefits.

Plaintiff claimed benefits under the summary plan description. (“SPD”). In the SPD, a participant is entitled to a disability pension if the person receives benefits from the SSA and has ten years of service. The SPD omits any language stating a person is no longer a Participant when the person ceases to be an employee. The SPD gave the administrative committee the authority to interpret the plan.

The district court ruled against Plaintiff holding that, although the SPD conflicted with the plan, the Plaintiff did not show reliance upon the SPD. The district court held that the administrative committee’s interpretation of the plan was not arbitrary and capricious. See Moriarity v. United Tech. Corp. Represented Employees Retirement Plan, 947 F. Supp. 43, 51-52 (D. Conn. 1996).

The Second Circuit decided that the Plaintiff’s reading of the plan, that he could work for ten years with United Technologies, quit, work elsewhere, become disabled and collect benefits from Defendant Plan was preposterous. Second Circuit determined that the plan administrator’s interpretation of the plan was the correct one.