holding son, not designated beneficiary by father, "stood no closer to beneficiary status than any other person"
Summary of this case from Coleman v. Champion Int'l Corp.No. 90-7582.
November 8, 1990.
W.D.N.Y., 739 F.Supp. 135.
AFFIRMED
holding son, not designated beneficiary by father, "stood no closer to beneficiary status than any other person"
Summary of this case from Coleman v. Champion Int'l Corp.holding that a pension plan owed no ERISA-related duties to a participant's son as a beneficiary because he had not been so designated by the participant
Summary of this case from Ramsay v. Mayerholding that the son of a pension plan participant, who had not been designated to receive any of his father's pension benefits, "stood no closer to "beneficiary" status than any other person"
Summary of this case from Park v. Trustees of 1199 Seiu Health Care EmploysFull title:Keys v. Eastman Kodak Co
Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Date published: Nov 8, 1990
Upon consideration, this Court concludes that plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action under ERISA, as…
Sports Auth. v. Abercrombie Fitch, Inc.A F, however, uses the phrase on garments, beneath its more prominently displayed store name. See The United…