Verdicts

On April 21, 2010, the Supreme Court affirmed that a court must give deference to an ERISA fiduciary's second interpretation of ambiguous plan language, even if the first interpretation made by the fiduciary is struck down by the court as unreasonable. The Court held that where the plan gives the fiduciary the broad authority to interpret the plan, that authority extends to the fiduciary's alternative interpretation if the first was a mistake. The so-called Firestone standard of judicial review, which requires a court to give deference to a plan administrator's interpretation of a plan provision, was upheld as a principle not susceptible to special exceptions. A court's duty is to be sure the fiduciary does not abuse its discretion, not to substitute its judgment if the fiduciary gets it wrong the first time because of an honest mistake. Conkright v. Frommert, 559 U. S. ____ (2010).