Norman Senn v. United Dominion Industries, Incorporated (1992)
green
· 149 citation events
across 26 courts.
Showing the 42 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199220092026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
yellow
LEANNAH v. Alliant Energy Corp. (2009)
But see Senn v. United Dominion Industries, Inc., 951 F.2d 806, 810, 815 (7th Cir.1992) (language that the company “will continue” to *951 pay premiums does not create an ambiguity as to vesting).
yellow
Bialoszynski v. Milwaukee Forge (2006)
But see Senn v. United Dominion Industries, Inc., 951 F.2d 806, 810, 815 (7th Cir.1992) (language that the company “will continue” to pay premiums does not create an ambiguity as to vesting).
green
CNH Industrial N. v. v. Reese (2018)
When a collective-bargaining agreement is merely silent on the question of vesting, other courts would conclude that it does not vest benefits for life.3 Similarly, when an agreement does not specify a duration for health care benefits in particular, other courts would simply apply the general durational clause.4 And other courts would not find ambiguity from the tying of retiree benefits to pensioner status.5 The approach taken in these other decisions “only underscores” ho…
green
Kenneth P. Bidlack v. Wheelabrator Corporation (1993)
And the final agreement between the company and the union in that case, which could be thought declaratory of earlier understandings, said that coverage “shall be continued during the term of this Agreement.” 951 F.2d at 810, 815 (emphasis added).
emphasis added
green
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers Of America, U.A.W. v. Skin… (1999)
See, e.g., Senn v. United Dominion Indus., Inc., 951 F.2d 806 , 816 (7th Cir. 1992) ("Thus, it requires more than a statement in a CBA that welfare benefits `will continue' to create an ambiguity about vesting, for the logical interpretation under our rule is that benefits `will continue' for the duration of the contract."); DeGeare, 837 F.2d at 814, 816-17 (holding that employer's promise to future retirees that benefits "will continue" could not be read as promise of veste…
"Thus, it requires more than a statement in a CBA that welfare benefits `will continue' to create an ambiguity about vesting, for the logical interpretation under our rule is that benefits `will continue' for the duration of the contract."
green
John Gallo v. Moen Incorporated (2016)
See Senior v. NSTAR Elec. & Gas Corp., 449 F.3d 206, 218-19, 224 (1st Cir.2006); Joyce v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 171 F.3d 130, 134-35 (2d Cir.1999); Skinner, 188 F.3d at 141-44; Gable v. Sweetheart Cup Co., 35 F.3d 851, 854-56 (4th Cir.1994); Nichols v. Alcatel USA Inc., 532 F.3d 364, 377-78 (5th Cir.2008) (preliminary injunction); Senn, 951 F.2d at 814-16; Anderson v. Alpha Portland Indus., Inc., 836 F.2d 1512 , 1516-20 (8th Cir.1988); Bazzone v. Auto.
Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 425 , 107 S.Ct. 1831 , 95 L.Ed.2d 365 (1987); Senn v. United Dominion Industries, Inc., 951 F.2d 806, 813-14 (7th Cir.1992); Hohmann v. Packard Instrument Co., 471 F.2d 815, 819 (7th Cir.1973).
green
SEC v. Lipson, David E. (2002)
Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 425 (1987); Senn v. United Dominion Industries, Inc., 951 F.2d 806, 813-14 (7th Cir. 1992); Hohmann v. Packard Instrument Co., 471 F.2d 815, 819 (7th Cir. 1973).
See Murphy v. Keystone Steel & Wire Co., 61 F.3d 560 , 565 (7th Cir.1995); Senn v. United Dominion Industries, Inc., 951 F.2d 806, 814-16 (7th Cir. 1992).
green
Stewart v. KHD Deutz of America Corp. (1996)
Senn v. United Dominion Industries, Inc., 951 F.2d 806, 813-14 (7th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 2992 , 125 L.Ed.2d 687 (1993); Local 836, United Automobile Workers v. Echlin, Inc., 670 F.Supp. 697 (E.D.Mich.1987); International Union, United Automobile Workers v. Parkr-Ohio Industries, 661 F.Supp. 1281 (N.D.Ohio 1987), aff'd in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 876 F.2d 894 (6th Cir. 1989); Smith v. ABS Industries, Inc., 653 F.Supp. 94 (N.D.Ohio 1986).
green
Murphy v. Keystone Steel & Wire Co. (1995)
Senn v. United Dominion Industries, Inc., 951 F.2d 806, 816 (7th Cir.1992); Bidlack, 993 F.2d at 607 .
green
William R. Murphy v. Keystone Steel & Wire Company (1995)
Senn v. United Dominion Industries, Inc., 951 F.2d 806, 816 (7th Cir.1992); Bidlack, 993 F.2d at 607 .
green
Kenneth Fuja, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Grace R. Fuja, Deceased v. Benefit Trust Life Insur… (1994)
See supra at 1409 (citing Awbrey, 961 F.2d at 930-81 ; Senn, 951 F.2d at 818; Heller, 833 F.2d at 1257 ).
See supra at 327 (citing Awbrey, 961 F.2d at 930-31 ; Senn, 951 F.2d at 818; Heller, 833 F.2d at 1257 ).
green
Pabst Brewing Co., Inc. v. Corrao (1996)
Senn, 951 F.2d at 815 (emphasis in original).
emphasis in original
green
Webb v. GAF Corp. (1996)
In contradistinction, the Seventh Circuit in Senn held that “[t]he mere silence of Collective Bargaining Agreements and plan documents concerning the vestment of welfare benefits fails to give rise to an ambiguity.” 951 F.2d at 816.
green
Boeing Co. v. March (2009)
Id. at 810.
Senn 951 F.2d at 814; Ryan v. Chromalloy Am.
green
Hackett v. XEROX CORP. LONG-TERM DISABILITY INCOME (2001)
Senn 951 F.2d at 814; Ryan v. Chromalloy Am.
green
Roth v. City of Glendale (2000)
Senn, 951 F.2d at 807, 816. ¶ 18.
green
Rowell v. Cigna (1997)
Senn, 951 F.2d at 813.
green
Carr v. First Nationwide Bank (1993)
While ERISA does not require vesting of welfare plans, “a [welfare] plan itself may imply a vested benefit.” Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 967 F.2d 90, 95-96 (3d Cir.1992); see also Senn, 951 F.2d at 818 (“[s]inee ERISA does not provide for the vesting of welfare benefits, vestment ... must arise from [the applicable agreements and plan documents].”); Internat’l Resources, Inc. v. Hew York Life Ins.
“[s]inee ERISA does not provide for the vesting of welfare benefits, vestment ... must arise from [the applicable agreements and plan documents].”
green
Marconi v. City of Joliet (2013)
The circuit court applied Senn v. United Dominion Industries, Inc., 951 F.2d 806, 814-16 (7th Cir. 1992), which employed a presumption that health care benefits established by collective bargaining agreements do not survive the expiration of such agreements.
Senn, 951 F.2d at 814.
green
Northern Crossarm Co. v. Chemical Specialities, Inc. (2004)
Co. of America, 140 Wis.2d 620, 626-27 , 412 N.W.2d 126,128-29 (1987) (determining parties’ intent from extrinsic evidence where contract was silent on relevant issue); Senn v. United Dominion Industries, Inc., 951 F.2d 806, 816 (7th0 *760 Cir.1992) (meaning of silence determined in light of explicit language).
Similarly, in Senn v. United Dominion Industries, Inc., 951 F.2d 806, 814-815 (7th Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2992 , 125 L.Ed.2d 687 (1993), the court held that “the question of whether ... plan documents contain agreements to vest entitlement to lifetime retirement benefits should be determined without reference to extrinsic evidence if the terms of the writings involved are unambiguous.” 7 Accordingly, the court turns to the applicable documents.
See, for example, Sentí v. United Dominion Industries, 951 F.2d 806, 814 (7th Cir.1992), reh’g en banc denied, 962 F.2d 655 (1992), petition for cert, filed (August 3, 1992) ("[I]n the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a company is not obligated to continue retiree *146 welfare benefits after the expiration of the contract."); and District 29, United Mine Workers of America v. Royal Coal Co., 768 F.2d 588, 590 (4th Cir.1985) (whether obligation to provide benefits to …
"[I]n the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a company is not obligated to continue retiree *146 welfare benefits after the expiration of the contract."
green
Sprague v. General Motors Corp. (1992)
In reality, the court in Senn said: "It is well settled that when legal and equitable relief are separately authorized by statute, and the ‘legal claim is joined with [the] equitable claim, the right to jury trial on the legal claim, including all issues common to both claims, remains intact.’” Id. at 813 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
emphasis added
green
Andre v. Salem Technical Services (1992)
Welfare benefit plans, in contrast, do remain subject to change or renegotiation unless the parties agree otherwise (Senn v. United Dominion Industries, Inc., 951 F.2d 806, 814 (7th Cir.1992)).
green
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers v. Skinner Engine Co. (1999)
See Senn, 951 F.2d at 817-18; Musto v. American Gen.
green
Bland v. Fiatallis North America, Inc. (2005)
See Senn v. United Dominion Indus., Inc., 951 F.2d 806 , 816 (7th Cir.1992) (holding that language, stating welfare benefits “will, continue” did not create ambiguity as to vesting).
green
Lou Bland v. Fiatallis North America, Inc. (2005)
See Senn v. United Dominion Indus., Inc., 951 F.2d 806 , 816 (7th Cir.1992) (holding that language stating welfare benefits "will continue" did not create ambiguity as to vesting).
See, e.g., Senn v. United Dominion Indus., Inc., 951 F.2d 806 , 814 (7th Cir.1992). 7 That observation, however, is not determinative of this appeal.
See, e.g., Senn v. United Dominion Indus., Inc., 951 F.2d 806 , 814 (7th Cir.1992).
green
16 Employee Benefits Cas. 2387, Pens. Plan Guide P 23891k Michael Hickey, Fred Jung, Michael Crowley v. A.E. … (1993)
See id.; see also Senn v. United Dominion Industries, Inc., 951 F.2d 806, 814-15 (7th Cir.1992) (interpretation of contract terms "should be determined without reference to extrinsic evidence if the terms of the writings involved are unambiguous"); Bellino v. Schlumberger Tech., Inc., 944 F.2d 26, 32 (1st Cir.1991) ("[b]asic contract and trust principles preclude federal courts from considering extrinsic evidence where the ERISA terms in question are unambiguous").
green
Hickey v. A.E. Staley Manufacturing (1993)
See id.; see also Senn v. United Dominion Industries, Inc., 951 F.2d 806, 814-15 (7th Cir.1992) (interpretation of contract terms “should be determined without reference to extrinsic evidence if the terms of the writings involved are unambiguous”); Bellino v. Schlumberger Tech., Inc., 944 F.2d 26, 32 (1st Cir.1991) (“[b]asic contract and trust principles preclude federal courts from considering extrinsic evidence where the ERISA terms in question are unambiguous”).
green
Awbrey v. Pennzoil Company (1992)
See generally, Senn v. United Dominion Indus., Inc., 951 F.2d 806 , 818 (7th Cir.1992) (court would not amend clear and unambiguous contract terms in a case brought under ERISA); Pierce County Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Health Trust v. Elks Lodge, 827 F.2d 1324 (9th Cir.1987) (extrinsic evidence inadmissible to interpret unambiguous contract terms); Anderson v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Corp., 893 F.2d 638, 640 (3d Cir.1990) (clear and unambiguous contract provisions…
green
Awbrey v. Pennzoil Co. (1992)
See generally, Senn v. United Dominion Indus., Inc., 951 F.2d 806 , 818 (7th Cir.1992) (court would not amend clear and unambiguous contract terms in a case brought under ERISA); Pierce County Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Health Trust v. Elks Lodge, 827 F.2d 1324 (9th Cir.1987) (extrinsic evidence inadmissible to interpret unambiguous contract terms); Anderson v. Pittsburg-Des Moines Corp., 893 F.2d 638 , 640 (3d Cir.1990) (clear and unambiguous contract provisions…
Compare Bidlack v. Wheelabrator Corp., 993 F.2d 603, 610-14 (7th Cir.1993) (Cudahy, J. concurring) with Senn v. United Dominion Indus., Inc., 951 F.2d 806 , 816 (7th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 903 , 113 S.Ct. 2992 , 125 L.Ed.2d 687 (1993).
green
Gaspar v. Linvatec Corp. (1996)
See Senn, 951 F.2d at 811.
green
Murphy v. Keystone Steel & Wire Co. (1994)
See also Senn, 951 F.2d at 814 .