Takhar
Takhar v. Prudential Insurance
Opinion
Dissenting Opinion
Nelson, J.
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority’s dismissal of Takhar’s argu *605 ments based on reasonable expectations and equitable estoppel. However, I disagree with the majority’s analysis of ERISA’s requirements regarding the group certificate issued to Takhar, which is the equivalent of a summary plan description (SPD). ERISA requires that in SPDs, “Any description of exception, limitations, reductions, and other restrictions of plan benefits shall not be minimized, rendered obscure or otherwise made to appear unimportant.” 29 C.F.R. § 2520.102-2 (b). The amendment provision in the group contract had the effect of being an exception or limitation on Takhar’s coverage that was not made apparent in the terms of his SPD. Accordingly, I would find that under ERISA, Prudential was bound by the terms of the SPD it issued him in 1995.
Lead Opinion
*604 MEMORANDUM *
Kuldip Takhar appeals the summary judgment in favor of Prudential Insurance Company of America in his action for declaratory relief pursuant to Section 1132 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). He argues that the terms of the XICOR, Inc. 1995 Plan document control instead of the 1990 document. We agree with the district court that this case turns on the Group Insurance Contract’s provision that an amendment will not affect a claim incurred before the date of change, and affirm.
Takhar argues that the language relied upon by Prudential to defeat his claim is in a document that was never provided to him. However, under ERISA, the summary plan description must be furnished to each participant, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1021 (a)(1), 1022(a), and all plan documents, including the Group Insurance Contract, must be available for examination by plan participants, id. at § 1024(b)(2). Takhar does not contend that Prudential failed to comply with this requirement or that he was unable to obtain a copy of the Group Insurance Contract. Accordingly, there is no basis for his contention that California law precludes application of the amendment provisions of…