Fred Tonnies (1995)
green
· 327 citation events
across 44 courts.
Showing the 50 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199520102026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers Of America, U.A.W. v. Skin… (1999)
Benefit "ERISA" Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 901 (3d Cir. 1995) ("Unisys II"); Deibler v. Local Union 23, 973 F.2d 206, 209 (3d Cir. 1992).
"Unisys II"
green
Larry Lewis v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp (2014)
(Unisys I), 58 F.3d 896, 903-04 (3d Cir.1995) (holding that an employer who “used terms such as ‘lifetime’ and ‘for life’ to describe the duration of retiree medical benefits, while at the same time expressly reserving the company’s right to terminate the plans under which those benefits were provided, did not render plans ‘internally inconsistent’ and therefore ambiguous”).
green
Karen Jenkin v. Union Labor Life Ins (2013)
Benefits ERISA Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 908 (3d Cir.1995).
green
Sullivan v. Cuna Mutual Insurance Society (2011)
Accord, e.g., UAW v. Rockford Powertrain, Inc., 350 F.3d 698 , 703 (7th Cir.2003) (explaining that “although the plan in its current iteration entitles retirees to health coverage for the duration of their lives and the lives of their eligible surviving spouses, the terms of the plan — including the plan’s continued existence — -are subject to change at the will of [the employer]” where there is a reservation of rights clause), cited in Vallone, 375 F.3d at 633; In re Unisys…
green
IUE-CWA v. Visteon Corp. (In Re Visteon Corp.) (2010)
Benefit ERISA Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 901 (3d Cir.1995) (“Unisys II ”).
green
In Re: Lucent Death (2008)
Benefit “ERISA” Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d Cir. 1995).
green
In Re Lucent Death Benefits ERISA Litigation (2008)
Benefit “ERISA” Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d Cir.1995).
green
Susan Staropoli v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co (2023)
ERISA Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 907 (3d Cir. 1995); see also Talasek v. Nat’l Oilwell Varco, L.P., 16 F.4th 164, 169 (5th Cir. 2021) (“Our precedent clearly indicates that an employee cannot reasonably rely on informal documents in the face of unambiguous terms in insurance plans.”).
green
Paul Felker v. USW LOCAL 10-901 USW LOCAL 10 (2017)
ERISA Litig, 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d Cir. 1995) (“The written terms of the plan documents control and cannot be modified or superseded by the employer’s oral undertakings.”).
“The written terms of the plan documents control and cannot be modified or superseded by the employer’s oral undertakings.”
Benefit, 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d Cir. 1995).
green
Ralph Bicknell v. Lockheed Martin Group Benefits (2011)
“ERISA’s framework ensures that employee benefit plans be governed by written documents and summary plan descriptions, which are the statutorily established means of informing participants and beneficiaries of the terms of their plan and its benefits.” In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Medical Benefit “ERISA” Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d Cir.1995) (citation omitted).
green
Mark Saltzman v. Independence Blue Cross (2010)
A “plan participant bears the burden of proving ... that the employer intended the welfare benefits to be vested.” In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Medical Benefit “ERISA” Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d Cir.1995).
Benefit “ERISA ” Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d Cir.1995).
green
Bandak v. ELI LILLY AND CO. RETIREMENT PLAN (2009)
They cannot be modified by “common practice.” E. g., Orth v. Wisconsin State Employees Union Counsel 24, 546 F.3d 868, 872 (7th Cir.2008); In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Medical Benefit “ERISA ” Litigation, 58 F.3d 896, 905-06 (3d Cir.1995).
green
Stephen Bandak v. Eli Lilly (2009)
They cannot be modified by “common practice.” E.g., Orth v. Wisconsin State Employees Union Counsel 24, 546 F.3d 868, 872 (7th Cir. 2008); In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Medical Benefit “ERISA” Litigation, 58 F.3d 896, 905-06 (3d Cir. 1995).
green
In Re Unisys Corp. Retiree Medical Benefits Erisa (2009)
For a more detailed review of the evolution of this litigation, see In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Medical Benefit ERISA Litigation, 58 F.3d 896, 899-901 (3d Cir.1995) (Unisys I); In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Medical Benefit ERISA Litigation, 57 F.3d 1255, 1257-61 (3d Cir. 1995) (Unisys II); and In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Medical Benefit ERISA Litigation, 242 F.3d 497, 499-502 (3d Cir.2001) (Unisys III). 2 .
Unisys II
Benefits ERISA Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d Cir.1995).
Benefits ERISA Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d Cir.1995).
green
Poore v. Simpson Paper Co. (2009)
Benefit “ERISA” Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 907 (3d Cir. 1995)).
green
Poore v. Simpson Paper Co. (2009)
Benefit “ERISA” Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 907 (3d Cir.1995)).
green
Bill Gray Enterprises, Incorporated Employee Health And Welfare Plan v. Ronald L. Gourley (2001)
Benefit "ERISA" Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d Cir. 1995) ("The written terms of the plan documents control . . . .").
"The written terms of the plan documents control . . . ."
green
Navlet v. Port of Seattle (2008)
Benefit “ERISA”Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 901 (3d Cir. 1995) (“In rejecting the automatic vesting of welfare plans, Congress evidenced its recognition of the need for flexibility with regard to an employer’s right to change medical plans.”); Gable v. Sweetheart Cup Co., 35 F.3d 851, 855 (4th Cir. 1994) (“Because such an obligation constitutes an extra-ERISA commitment, however, courts may not lightly infer the existence of an agreement to vest employee welfare benefits.”); Adams v…
“In rejecting the automatic vesting of welfare plans, Congress evidenced its recognition of the need for flexibility with regard to an employer’s right to change medical plans.”
green
Saltzman v. Independence Blue Cross (2009)
Benefit “ERISA” Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d Cir.1995) (internal citations omitted).
green
Navlet v. Port of Seattle (2008)
Benefit "ERISA" Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d Cir.1995); Gable, 35 F.3d at 855 ; Sprague, 133 F.3d at 400 ; John Morrell & Co., 37 F.3d at 1304 ); accord Wise, 986 F.2d at 937-38 ("[c]ontractual vesting is a narrow doctrine ... [p]laintiffs must assert strong prohibitory or granting language"); Bland, 401 F.3d at 784 ("[u]pon vesting, benefits become forever unalterable, and because employers are not legally required to vest benefits, the intention to vest must be found in `c…
green
Senior v. NSTAR Electric & Gas Corp. (2005)
See In re Unisys Corp., 58 F.3d at 902 (“The written terms of the plan documents control and cannot be modified or superseded by the employer’s oral undertakings.”).
“The written terms of the plan documents control and cannot be modified or superseded by the employer’s oral undertakings.”
green
BAGDON v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION (2021)
Unisys, 58 F.3d at 902 (“[A]ny retiree's right to…benefits under a plan can only be found if it is established by the terms of the ERISA- governed employee benefit plan”); see also CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U.S. 421, 437 (2011) (“[W]e cannot agree that the terms of statutorily required plan summaries… may be enforced under § 502(a)(1)(B) as the terms of the plan itself.”) (internal parentheses omitted).
“[A]ny retiree's right to…benefits under a plan can only be found if it is established by the terms of the ERISA- governed employee benefit plan”
green
Grove v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (2016)
Benefit “ERISA” Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 901 (3d Cir.1995)).
green
FLEMING v. MINNESOTA LIFE INSURANCE CO. (2025)
ERISA Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d Cir. 1995).
Benefit “ERISA” Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d.
green
SALVUCCI v. THE GLENMEDE CORPORATION (2023)
Benefit ERISA Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d Cir. 1995).
green
Sadeghi v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (2021)
Benefit “ERISA” Litigations, 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d Cir.1995)).
green
GENOMIND, INC. v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC. (2021)
ERISA Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 901 (3d Cir. 1995) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
quotation marks and citations omitted
ERISA Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 904 (3d Cir. 1995) (joining “[o]ther courts” in “recognizing that an employer can qualify the provision of ‘lifetime’ benefits by reserving the right to terminate the plan under which those benefits are provided”). c.
joining “[o]ther courts” in “recognizing that an employer can qualify the provision of ‘lifetime’ benefits by reserving the right to terminate the plan under which those benefits are provided”
“ERISA’s framework ensures that employee benefit plans be governed by written documents and summary plan descriptions, which are the statutorily established means of informing participants and beneficiaries of the terms of their plan and its benefits.” In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Medical Benefit ERISA Litigation, 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d Cir. 1995); Univ.
green
HOTOP v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA (2020)
“ERISA” Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d Cir. 1995).
green
STAROPOLI v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (2020)
ERISA Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).
citation omitted
“ERISA’s framework ensures that employee benefit plans be governed by written documents and summary plan descriptions, which are the statutorily established means of informing participants and beneficiaries of the terms of their plan and its benefits.” In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Medical Benefit ERISA Litigation, 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d Cir. 1995).
green
MCBURROWS v. VERIZON (2019)
ERISA Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d Cir. 1995) (noting that the employee benefit plan is the “statutorily established means of informing participants and beneficiaries of the terms of their plan and its benefits.”).
noting that the employee benefit plan is the “statutorily established means of informing participants and beneficiaries of the terms of their plan and its benefits.”
green
Romero v. Allstate Insurance (2014)
Benefit “ERISA” Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d Cir.1995).
green
Groves v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. (2014)
ERISA plaintiffs generally may not prevail on an equitable estoppel theory unless they can plead and prove (1) material misrepresentation, (2) reasonable and detrimental reliance thereupon, and (3) “extraordinary circumstances.” Pisciotta v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 91 F.3d 1326 , 1331 (9th Cir.1996) (citing In Re Unisys Corp. Retiree Medical Benefit “ERISA” Litigation, 58 F.3d 896, 907 (3d Cir.1995)).
green
Lipstein v. UnitedHealth Group (2013)
Benefit “ERISA” Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d Cir.1995); 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (a)(1) (D) (requiring fiduciaries to discharge their duties “in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan” to the extent those documents and instruments are consistent with ERISA).
green
Malbrough v. Kanawha Insurance (2013)
Benefit ERISA Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 908 (3d Cir.1995) (“Because our decisions require that any detrimental reliance on plan language also be ‘reasonable,’ our finding that the [terms of the Plan] are unambiguous undercuts the reasonableness of any detrimental reliance .... ”)); see also Sprague v. GMC, 133 F.3d 388, 404 (6th Cir.1998) (noting that a “party’s reliance can seldom, if ever, be reasonable or justifiable if it is inconsistent with the clear and unambiguous terms o…
green
Fulghum v. Embarq Corp. (2013)
(Unisys I), 58 F.3d 896, 903-04 (3d Cir.1995) (finding that although the plan promised lifetime benefits, the broad and unequivocal reservation of rights clause was unambiguous and allowed the employer to terminate benefits at any time); Gable v. Sweetheart Cup Co., 35 F.3d 851, 856 (4th Cir.1994) (finding that the express reservation of rights clause providing that the employer could modify or terminate participant's benefits defeated the plaintiffs’ claim that the company …
green
O'Brien v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance (2012)
Benefit ERISA Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 908 (3d Cir.1995); see also Sprague v. GMC, 133 F.3d 388, 404 (6th Cir.1998) (noting that a “party’s reliance can seldom, if ever, be reasonable or justifiable if it is inconsistent with the clear and unambiguous terms of plan documents available to or furnished to the party”)).
green
Hirsh v. Boeing Health & Welfare Benefit Plan (2012)
In re Lucent Death Benefits ERISA Litigation, 541 F.3d 250, 254 (3d Cir.2008), quoting In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Medical Benefit ERISA Litigation, 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d Cir.1995).
In Re Unisys Corp. Retiree Medical Benefit “ERISA” Litigation, 58 F.3d 896, 907 (3rd 17 Cir.1995).
green
Hirsh v. Boeing Health and Welfare Benefit Plan (2010)
In re Lucent Death Benefits ERISA Litigation, 541 F.3d 250, 254 (3d Cir.2008), quoting In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Medical Benefit ERISA Litigation, 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d Cir.1995).
green
Erbe v. Connecticut General Life Insurance (2010)
Benefit “ERISA” Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d Cir.1995)).
green
Bellah v. American Airlines, Inc. (2009)
“An ERISA beneficiary may recover benefits under an equitable estoppel theory upon establishing a material misrepresentation, reasonable and detrimental reliance upon the representation and extraordinary circumstances.” Pisciotta v. Teledyne Indus., 91 F.3d 1326 , 1331 (9th Cir.1996) (citing In Re Unisys Corp. Retiree Medical Benefit “ERISA” Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 907 (3d Cir.1995)).
green
Abbott v. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP (2001)
Implement Workers of Amer. v. BVR Liquidating Inc., 190 F.3d 768, 773 (6th Cir. 1999) (“the inclusion of a ‘reservation of rights’ provision establishes that there was no intent for benefits to vest”); McGrath v. Rhode Island Retirement Bd., 88 F.3d 12, 17-18 (1st Cir. 1998) (recognizing that, “generally, . . . with supposed unilateral contracts ... if the offeror expressly reserves the power to revoke the offer until the offeree’s performance is complete, then the offer is …
“[w]here... the reservation of rights is broad and unequivocal, it will prevail over a promise of lifetime benefits”