In Conflict Between Plan Document and SPD, SPD Prevails to Participant’s Detriment discusses how Kolpacke v. CSX Pension Plan, No. 07-1959 (CA6, May 21, 2008) found that the SPD prevailed in a conflict between the plan document and the SPD, even if the SPD provided less benefits to the participant:

The SPD provided that the plaintiff's benefit under the plan would be reduced by railroad retirement benefits, which are the railroad industry's version of social security benefits. The participant argued that the plan document did not provide for this reduction in benefits, thus the conflict. Plaintiff also argued that CSX was estopped from reducing his benefits by an offset for railroad retirement because CSX provided him with a letter stating that his benefit had already been offset for railroad retirement and would be reduced no further. 9 days after the participant elected to retire, CSX corrected this mistake.

The district court granted summary judgment to CSX. Even though the benefit calculation made according the language in the SPD provided less benefits to the participant than the language in the plan document, the participant did not prevail. In the opinion, the district court cited to Anderson v. Chrysler Corp., 99 F.3d 846 (7th Cir. 1996) for the proposition that where the plan itself gives the employee greater benefits and protection, it should control.

The important takeaway is to make sure your plan document and SPD contain the same plan provisions.

We discussed this topic in detail in Conflicts Between the Plan Document and the Summary Plan Description (SPD), including discussions about the following: