homepage WHEN TO RETIRE VIPStory

LOOK AT WHAT GENEROUS MOTORS DID. See GM vs Sprague

Throughout the 1960's and 70's, GM stated in writing that they would pay for certain Medical benefits " for your lifetime ". In the late 1980's, GM decided to make major changes in their Medical Plans. They required contributions and higher deductibles for the retirees The retirees thought this was unfair and a violation of law. There were 84,000 retirees affected. The case was known as "Sprague vs General Motors. For 10 years, the battle was fought in the courts. The lower courts generally found in favor of the retirees. GM appealed. The federal district courts found in favor of GM. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court refused to hear the case, and the retirees lost. The reason - GM ( like Boeing ) had usually included the magic words " we reserve the right to amend, modify, suspend, or terminate ."

As part of the court record we find the following statement(s)

"We are not aware of any court of appeals decision imposing fiduciary liability for a failure to disclose information that is not required to be disclosed. At least three circuits have held that there is no fiduciary duty to disclose planned changes in benefits or even the termination of the plan before those actions become official . . . there can be no fiduciary duty to disclose the possibildy (sic)of a future change in benefits. See Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 173, Comment d (1959) ("Ordinarily the trustee is not under a duty to the beneficiary to furnish information to him in the absence of a request for such information").

Had an early retiree asked about the possibility of the plan changing, and had he received a misleading answer, or had GM on its own initiative provided misleading information about the future of the plan, or had GM been required by ERISA or its implementing regulations to forecast the future, a different case would have been presented. But we do not think that GM's accurate representations of its current program can reasonably be deemed misleading. GM having given out no inaccurate information, there was no breach of fiduciary duty. "

WHY DON'T YOU ASK BOEING (IN WRITING ) WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO ?