Cinelli

In a case arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), we are called upon to determine whether the termination of an insurance policy was consistent with the terms of the plan documents. In so doing we must consider what constitutes the plan documents and whether because of an ambiguity or mistake, those documents should be reformed.

Alfred Cinelli appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Security Pacific Corporation Supplemental Group Life Insurance Plan (“the Supplemental Plan”), Security Pacific Corporation (“Security Pacific”), Bank of America N.T. & S.A. and BankAmerica Corporation (“BankAmeri-ca”). Cinelli argues that the Supplemental Plan was improperly terminated depriving him of fully vested life insurance benefits. The district court found that the benefits *1440 were not fully vested and that the Supplemental Plan provided for termination. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We conclude the termination of the Plan was consistent with the plan documents and we affirm.

I

Security Pacific offered a group life insurance plan to all of its employees. In 1979, the Board of Directors decided to offer a…