Skip to main content

Randy Erven v. Blandin Paper Company, a Minnesota Corporation Blandin Paper Company Employees' Retirement Plan

8th CircuitJanuary 22, 2007No. 05-1695Cited 6 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Gibson, Riley, Colloton
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Plan administrator's use of Table I mortality assumptions through August 1, 1994, but reversed and found an abuse of discretion regarding the administrator's failure to update to new mortality tables after August 1, 1996.

What This Ruling Means

**Erven v. Blandin Paper Company: Court Rules on Retirement Benefit Calculations** This case involved a dispute over how Blandin Paper Company calculated retirement benefits for its employees. Randy Erven challenged the company's retirement plan administrator for using outdated mortality tables (statistical charts that predict life expectancy) to determine pension payments. These tables affect how much retirees receive each month - older tables that underestimate how long people live today can result in lower monthly payments. The court reached a split decision. It ruled that the plan administrator acted properly by using the original mortality tables through August 1994 and was not required to update them immediately when new tables became available in 1994. However, the court found that the administrator made an error by failing to update to newer, more accurate mortality tables after August 1996, when sufficient time had passed to make the switch. **What this means for workers:** This ruling reinforces that retirement plan administrators must keep benefit calculations reasonably current with updated life expectancy data. Workers should pay attention to how their pension benefits are calculated and can challenge administrators who use significantly outdated assumptions that unfairly reduce their retirement payments.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.