Chadbourne’s Edward P. Smith examines the U.S. Supreme Court’s CIGNA
Corp. v. Amara decision, which both clarified and muddied the ERISA
issue of the remedies available in the event of a conflict between the
terms of a plan document and the information provided to employees in a
summary plan description.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *