## Facts

- Johnny Hicks worked as an hourly truck driver for White Swan, Inc., a Fleming affiliate.
- Fleming sponsored ERISA-governed benefit plans, including a long-term disability (LTD) plan limited to clerical employees under age 70 and employees under age 70 who were exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
- As a non-exempt hourly truck driver, Hicks was ineligible for LTD benefits under the plan’s terms and did not receive the plan’s official summary plan description (SPD).
- In January 1988, Hicks received a personalized “Your 1988 Total Compensation Report” summarizing benefit programs and listing estimated values.
- Due to an apparent error, the report stated Hicks would receive LTD benefits after 180 days of disability, despite his ineligibility under the actual plan.
- The report included disclaimers indicating it was only a summary and that plan documents controlled; it did not present itself as an SPD.
- The report omitted multiple categories of information required in an SPD, including plan administrative details, agent for service of process, funding source, and claims procedures.
- Hicks was injured and became disabled in May 1988; his LTD claim was denied as ineligible under the plan.
- Hicks sued under ERISA, arguing the report functioned as an SPD and its LTD description controlled.

## Issues

1. Whether the “Total Compensation Report” qualified as an ERISA summary plan description such that its erroneous statement of LTD coverage could govern eligibility contrary to the formal plan terms.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Fleming.
- The court held the “Total Compensation Report” was not an SPD because it did not contain “all or substantially all” categories of information required by ERISA § 1022 and 29 C.F.R. § 2520.102-3.
- Because the booklet was not an SPD, its inaccurate description of LTD coverage did not entitle Hicks to benefits inconsistent with the governing plan.

## Legal Principles

- A document constitutes an ERISA summary plan description only if it contains all or substantially all categories of information required by 29 U.S.C. § 1022 and 29 C.F.R. § 2520.102-3.
- Omission of significant required categories (e.g., plan administration information, agent for service of process, funding, and claims procedures) prevents a document from functioning as an SPD.
- Disclaimers and the document’s form and presentation may support the conclusion that a benefits summary is not intended to serve as the plan’s controlling SPD.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit ruled that an individualized benefits summary containing an erroneous coverage statement does not control ERISA plan benefits unless it qualifies as an SPD by including all or substantially all required statutory and regulatory disclosure categories.


Hicks v. Fleming Cos., 961 F.2d 537 (5th Cir. 1992)