Summary
holding that ex-husband was proper beneficiary despite a dissolution agreement containing "a fairly explicit waiver of the plan benefits" and stating that "we have interpreted [§ 1104(a)(1)(D)] as establishing a clear mandate that plan administrators follow plan documents in determining the designated beneficiary"
Summary of this case from Kmatz v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.Opinion
No. 96-6233.
April 13, 1998.
E.D.Tenn.
DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS
Affirmed