McDaniel v. Chevron Corp., 203 F.3d 1099 (9^th Cir. 2000)- Plan members' sued alleging their plan wrongly adjusted a mortality actuary table by using a "set forward" of nine months due to the difference in life expectancy of males and females.  The parties estimated that the class consisted of approximately 20,000 plan participants and that the amount in controversy was as much as $ 30 million.

            This court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants.  The parties did not dispute that the mortality table in question, the UP-1984 Mortality Table, was a "unisex" or "blended" mortality table which assumed a ten to thirty percent female content.  For populations whose female content was either greater than thirty percent or less than ten percent, the authors of the UP 1984 Mortality Table recommended adjusting the table backward or forward a number of years to avoid overstating or understating the correct mortality assumptions.  Chevron’s population was 5% female.  The class argued that the plan document’s language did not allow for a "set forward" and merely stated that the plan would calculate benefits either "based on" or "in accordance with" the mortality assumptions set forth in the "UP-1984 Mortality Table."

            This court decided that abuse of discretion, rather than de novo, was the appropriate standard of review.  The Chevron Plan had conferred "sole discretion" on the plan administrator to construe the terms of the plan and to determine benefit eligibility, and that those interpretations would be "conclusive and binding."  This court found no conflict of interest or interpretation of a federal statute that would change the standard to de novo review.

            This court determined that the Plan was ambiguous as to whether the Plan Administrator could apply a set forward.  The court found that the Plan Administrator could, within his discretion, apply the set forward.  Thus, the Plan did not underpay the class' benefits in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a).  Neither did the Plan violated the anticutback rule in 29 U.S.C. § 1054(g).  The class's argument that Chevron violated 29 U.S.C. § 1054(g) and § 18(b) of the plan was meritless.  29 U.S.C. § 1054(g) applies only to formal plan amendments, not to interpretations of ambiguous plan language.