CIGNA CORPORATION AND CIGNA PENSION PLAN, Petitioners, v. JANICE C. AMARA, GISELA R. BRODERICK, ANNETTE S. GLANZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Respondents.
Year 2009
Court U.S. Supreme Court
Case Number 09-804
  • United States

UP weighed in along with three other organizations to advance the position that where there is a conflict between plan documents, the one that favors plan participants should control, or, in the alternative, SPD documents. Participants should not be obliged to establish detrimental reliance, likely harm, or anything beyond a clear conflict between two plan documents. UP’s brief was written pro bono by Ellen Doyle and Richard Payne of the Pittsburgh, PA firm of Stember Feinstein Doyle Payne & Cordes, LLC with input from Pasadena-based UP advisor Ron Dean.