Wilson v. Moog Automotive, Inc. Pension Plan And Trust, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 25029 (8th Cir. October 8, 1999)-Facing impending plant closure, union representatives and management negotiated a Closure Agreement, part of which was intended to extend early retirement benefits to certain employees who would have qualified by the end of the year but for the plant shutdown. Unfortunately, the phrasing of the provision was confusing. After non-qualifying employees inquired about benefits, the company sought to clarify their position by adding a section to the existing Pension Plan. The new language in the Plan mistakenly granted benefits to some of the previously-barred employees. When the company then attempted to retract its mistake, nine former employees sued, alleging various ERISA violations. The district court denied their claims, and this court affirmed.
This court found that it is not true that the "written instrument" which ERISA requires is the Pension Plan alone and that no other documents could be considered by the plan administrator. In this case, the Closing Agreement could be consulted as extrinsic evidence of intent in order to correct the mistake in the Pension Plan. The "written instrument" requirement is intended simply to ensure that participants are on notice of their own obligations and the benefits to which they are entitled under the plan.
As for plaintiffs’ appeal of the denial of statutory damages for the Company’s alleged failure to provide plan documents upon request, as required by ERISA, this court found that plaintiffs’ first request for documents was not made in writing and was not made to the proper person. All of their subsequent requests were satisfied within the thirty-day window or, the court suggested, at least within a "reasonable time." Further, the court determined that ERISA did not require the plan administrator to furnish certain requested documents, such as welfare plan documents.