egelhoff
egelhoff
minor
natural
parent
breiner
et
argued
november
decided
march
david
egelhoff
married
petitioner
designated
beneficiary
life
insurance
policy
pension
plan
provided
employer
governed
employee
retirement
income
security
act
erisa
shortly
petitioner
egelhoff
divorced
egelhoff
died
intestate
respondents
egelhoff
children
previous
marriage
filed
separate
suits
petitioner
state
recover
insurance
proceeds
pension
plan
benefits
relied
washington
statute
provides
designation
spouse
beneficiary
nonprobate
asset
defined
include
life
insurance
policy
employee
benefit
plan
revoked
automatically
upon
divorce
respondents
argued
absence
qualified
named
beneficiary
proceeds
pass
egelhoff
statutory
heirs
state
law
trial
courts
concluded
insurance
policy
pension
plan
administered
accordance
erisa
granted
petitioner
summary
judgment
cases
washington
appeals
consolidated
cases
reversed
concluding
statute
erisa
state
affirmed
holding
statute
although
applicable
employee
benefit
plans
refe
connection
erisa
plan
compel
statute
held
state
statute
connection
erisa
plans
therefore
expressly
pp
erisa
section
erisa
shall
supersede
state
laws
insofar
may
hereafter
relate
employee
benefit
plan
covered
erisa
state
law
relates
erisa
plan
connection
reference
plan
shaw
delta
air
lines
determine
whether
forbidden
connection
looks
erisa
objectives
guide
scope
state
law
congress
understood
survive
well
nature
state
law
effect
erisa
plans
california
div
labor
standards
enforcement
dillingham
applying
framework
state
statute
impermissible
connection
erisa
plans
binds
plan
administrators
particular
choice
rules
determining
beneficiary
status
administrators
must
pay
benefits
beneficiaries
chosen
state
law
rather
identified
plan
documents
statute
thus
implicates
area
core
erisa
concern
running
counter
erisa
commands
plan
shall
specify
basis
payments
made
plan
fiduciary
shall
administer
plan
accordance
documents
instruments
governing
plan
state
statute
also
prohibited
connection
erisa
plans
interferes
nationally
uniform
plan
administration
administrators
make
payments
simply
identifying
beneficiary
specified
plan
documents
must
familiarize
state
statutes
determine
whether
named
beneficiary
status
revoked
operation
law
burden
exacerbated
problems
may
confront
administrator
employer
plan
participant
participant
former
spouse
live
different
although
washington
statute
provides
protection
administrators
actual
knowledge
divorce
still
face
risk
might
later
find
knowledge
instead
decide
await
results
litigation
among
putative
beneficiaries
paying
benefits
simply
transfer
beneficiaries
costs
delay
uncertainty
requiring
administrators
master
relevant
laws
contend
litigation
undermine
congressional
goal
minimizing
administrative
financial
burdens
differing
state
regulations
affecting
erisa
plan
system
processing
claims
paying
benefits
impose
precisely
burden
erisa
intended
avoid
fort
halifax
packing
coyne
pp
respondents
reasons
ordinary
erisa
analysis
apply
state
statute
allows
employers
opt
involves
areas
traditional
state
regulation
erisa
statute
also
must
various
state
statutes
providing
murdering
heir
entitled
receive
property
result
killing
rejected
pp
reversed
remanded
thomas
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
scalia
kennedy
souter
ginsburg
joined
scalia
filed
concurring
opinion
ginsburg
joined
breyer
filed
dissenting
opinion
stevens
joined
donna
rae
egelhoff
petitioner
samantha
egelhoff
minor
natural
parent
kate
breiner
david
egelhoff
writ
certiorari
washington
march
justice
thomas
delivered
opinion
washington
statute
provides
designation
spouse
beneficiary
nonprobate
asset
revoked
automatically
upon
divorce
asked
decide
whether
employee
retirement
income
security
act
erisa
stat
et
statute
extent
applies
erisa
plans
hold
petitioner
donna
rae
egelhoff
married
david
egelhoff
egelhoff
employed
boeing
company
provided
life
insurance
policy
pension
plan
plans
governed
erisa
egelhoff
designated
wife
beneficiary
april
egelhoffs
divorced
two
months
later
egelhoff
died
intestate
following
automobile
accident
time
egelhoff
remained
listed
beneficiary
life
insurance
policy
pension
plan
life
insurance
proceeds
totaling
paid
respondents
samantha
david
egelhoff
egelhoff
children
previous
marriage
statutory
heirs
state
law
sued
petitioner
washington
state
recover
life
insurance
proceeds
respondents
relied
washington
statute
provides
marriage
dissolved
invalidated
provision
made
prior
event
relates
payment
transfer
death
decedent
interest
nonprobate
asset
favor
granting
interest
power
decedent
former
spouse
revoked
provision
affected
section
must
interpreted
nonprobate
asset
affected
passes
former
spouse
failed
survive
decedent
died
time
entry
decree
dissolution
declaration
invalidity
rev
code
statute
applies
nonprobate
assets
wherever
situated
held
time
entry
superior
state
decree
dissolution
marriage
declaration
invalidity
defines
nonprobate
asset
include
life
insurance
policy
employee
benefit
plan
annuity
similar
contract
individual
retirement
account
respondents
argued
entitled
life
insurance
proceeds
washington
statute
disqualified
egelhoff
beneficiary
absence
qualified
named
beneficiary
proceeds
pass
egelhoff
heirs
separate
action
respondents
also
sued
recover
pension
plan
benefits
respondents
argued
washington
statute
disqualified
egelhoff
beneficiary
thus
entitled
benefits
plan
trial
courts
concluding
insurance
policy
pension
plan
administered
accordance
erisa
granted
summary
judgment
petitioner
cases
app
pet
cert
washington
appeals
consolidated
cases
reversed
estate
egelhoff
app
concluded
washington
statute
erisa
applying
statute
held
respondents
entitled
proceeds
insurance
policy
pension
plan
ibid
washington
affirmed
held
state
statute
although
applicable
employee
benefit
plan
refe
erisa
plans
extent
require
apply
immediately
exclusively
erisa
plan
existence
plan
essential
operation
statute
also
held
statute
lacks
connection
erisa
plan
compel
emphasized
statute
alter
nature
plan
administrator
fiduciary
duties
requirements
plan
administration
concluded
statute
conflict
specific
provision
erisa
including
antialienation
provision
operate
divert
benefit
plan
proceeds
distribution
terms
plan
documents
merely
alters
underlying
circumstances
distribution
scheme
plan
must
applied
courts
disagreed
whether
statutes
like
washington
erisa
compare
manning
hayes
finding
cert
pending
metropolitan
life
ins
hanslip
emard
hughes
aircraft
finding
resolve
conflict
granted
certiorari
ii
petitioner
argues
washington
statute
falls
within
terms
erisa
express
provision
erisa
traditional
principles
conflict
conclude
statute
expressly
erisa
address
first
argument
erisa
section
erisa
shall
supersede
state
laws
insofar
may
hereafter
relate
employee
benefit
plan
covered
erisa
observed
repeatedly
broadly
worded
provision
clearly
expansive
new
york
state
conference
blue
cross
blue
shield
plans
travelers
ins
see
morales
trans
world
airlines
listing
cases
described
erisa
broad
terms
time
recognized
term
relate
taken
extend
furthest
stretch
indeterminacy
else
practical
purposes
never
run
course
travelers
supra
held
state
law
relates
erisa
plan
connection
reference
plan
shaw
delta
air
lines
petitioner
focuses
connection
part
inquiry
acknowledging
connection
scarcely
restrictive
relate
cautioned
uncritical
literalism
make
preemption
turn
infinite
connections
travelers
supra
instead
determine
whether
state
law
forbidden
connection
look
objectives
erisa
statute
guide
scope
state
law
congress
understood
survive
well
nature
effect
state
law
erisa
plans
california
div
labor
standards
enforcement
dillingham
quoting
travelers
supra
citation
omitted
applying
framework
petitioner
argues
washington
statute
impermissible
connection
erisa
plans
agree
statute
binds
erisa
plan
administrators
particular
choice
rules
determining
beneficiary
status
administrators
must
pay
benefits
beneficiaries
chosen
state
law
rather
identified
plan
documents
statute
thus
implicates
area
core
erisa
concern
particular
runs
counter
erisa
commands
plan
shall
specify
basis
payments
made
plan
fiduciary
shall
administer
plan
accordance
documents
instruments
governing
plan
making
payments
beneficiary
designated
participant
terms
plan
words
unlike
generally
applicable
laws
regulating
areas
erisa
nothing
say
dillingham
upheld
notwithstanding
incidental
effect
erisa
plans
see
statute
governs
payment
benefits
central
matter
plan
administration
washington
statute
also
prohibited
connection
erisa
plans
interferes
nationally
uniform
plan
administration
one
principal
goals
erisa
enable
employers
establish
uniform
administrative
scheme
provides
set
standard
procedures
guide
processing
claims
disbursement
benefits
fort
halifax
packing
coyne
uniformity
impossible
however
plans
subject
different
legal
obligations
different
washington
statute
issue
poses
precisely
threat
plan
administrators
make
payments
simply
identifying
beneficiary
specified
plan
instead
must
familiarize
state
statutes
determine
whether
named
beneficiary
status
revoked
operation
law
context
burden
exacerbated
problems
may
confront
administrator
employer
located
one
state
plan
participant
lives
another
participant
former
spouse
lives
third
situation
administrators
might
find
plan
payments
subject
conflicting
legal
obligations
sure
washington
statute
protects
administrators
liability
making
payments
named
beneficiary
unless
actual
knowledge
dissolution
invalidation
marriage
rev
code
permits
administrators
refuse
make
payments
dispute
among
putative
beneficiaries
resolved
administrators
pay
benefits
face
risk
might
later
find
actual
knowledge
divorce
instead
decide
await
results
litigation
paying
benefits
simply
transfer
beneficiaries
costs
delay
requiring
erisa
administrators
master
relevant
laws
contend
litigation
undermine
congressional
goal
minimiz
ing
administrative
financial
burden
plan
administrators
burdens
ultimately
borne
beneficiaries
mcclendon
recognize
state
laws
create
potential
lack
uniformity
differing
state
regulations
affecting
erisa
plan
system
processing
claims
paying
benefits
impose
precisely
burden
erisa
intended
avoid
fort
halifax
supra
noted
statute
issue
directly
conflicts
erisa
requirements
plans
administered
benefits
paid
accordance
plan
documents
conclude
washington
statute
connection
erisa
plans
therefore
iii
respondents
suggest
several
reasons
ordinary
erisa
analysis
apply
first
observe
washington
statute
allows
employers
opt
according
respondents
statute
neither
regulates
plan
administration
impairs
uniformity
apply
instrument
governing
disposition
nonprobate
asset
expressly
provides
otherwise
rev
code
believe
statute
saved
simply
least
broad
sense
default
rule
even
though
washington
statute
cancellation
private
choice
may
trumped
specific
language
plan
documents
statute
dictate
choice
facing
erisa
plans
respect
matters
plan
administration
dillingham
supra
plan
administrators
must
either
follow
washington
beneficiary
designation
scheme
alter
terms
plan
indicate
follow
statute
less
regulation
terms
erisa
plans
simply
two
ways
complying
course
simple
noncompliance
statute
one
options
available
plan
administrators
choice
one
timing
whether
bear
burden
compliance
ex
post
paying
benefits
statute
dictates
contravention
plan
documents
ex
ante
amending
respondents
emphasize
provision
makes
compliance
statute
less
burdensome
mandatory
true
enough
burden
remains
hardly
trivial
enough
plan
administrators
opt
particular
statute
instead
must
maintain
familiarity
laws
update
plans
necessary
satisfy
requirements
similar
statutes
also
must
attentive
changes
interpretations
statutes
state
courts
tailoring
plans
employer
conduct
peculiarities
law
jurisdiction
exactly
burden
erisa
seeks
eliminate
supra
second
respondents
emphasize
washington
statute
involves
family
law
probate
law
areas
traditional
state
regulation
indeed
presumption
areas
traditional
state
regulation
family
law
see
hisquierdo
hisquierdo
presumption
overcome
congress
made
clear
desire
accordingly
hesitated
find
state
family
law
conflicts
erisa
relates
erisa
plans
see
boggs
boggs
holding
erisa
state
community
property
law
permitting
testamentary
transfer
interest
spouse
pension
plan
benefits
finally
respondents
argue
erisa
statute
also
must
various
state
statutes
providing
murdering
heir
entitled
receive
property
result
killing
see
cal
prob
code
ann
west
supp
comp
ch
erisa
context
slayer
statutes
revoke
beneficiary
status
someone
murdered
plan
participant
statutes
us
decide
issue
note
however
principle
underlying
statutes
adopted
nearly
every
state
well
established
law
long
historical
pedigree
predating
erisa
see
riggs
palmer
statutes
less
uniform
nationwide
interference
aims
erisa
least
debatable
judgment
washington
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
inconsistent
opinion
ordered
donna
rae
egelhoff
petitioner
samantha
egelhoff
minor
natural
parent
kate
breiner
david
egelhoff
writ
certiorari
washington
march
justice
scalia
justice
ginsburg
joins
concurring
join
opinion
since
believe
relate
provision
employee
retirement
income
security
act
erisa
assuredly
triggered
state
law
contradicts
erisa
notes
statute
issue
directly
conflicts
erisa
requirements
plans
administered
benefits
paid
accordance
plan
documents
ante
remain
unsure
think
lower
courts
everyone
else
else
triggers
relate
provision
interpreted
anything
reference
established
jurisprudence
concerning
conflict
field
discernible
content
pick
every
ripple
pond
producing
result
sensible
person
intended
california
div
labor
standards
enforcement
dillingham
scalia
concurring
persist
view
bring
coherence
area
give
statute
plausible
precise
content
interpreting
relate
clause
reference
ordinary
jurisprudence
see
ibid
donna
rae
egelhoff
petitioner
samantha
egelhoff
minor
natural
parent
kate
breiner
david
egelhoff
writ
certiorari
washington
march
justice
breyer
justice
stevens
joins
dissenting
like
justice
scalia
believe
apply
normal
conflict
field
principles
state
statute
covers
erisa
documents
alike
ante
concurring
opinion
recent
erisa
cases
consistent
approach
see
de
buono
medical
clinical
services
fund
rejecting
literal
interpretation
erisa
clause
california
div
labor
standards
enforcement
dillingham
narrowly
interpreting
clause
new
york
state
conference
blue
cross
blue
shield
plans
travelers
ins
go
ing
beyond
unhelpful
text
clause
frustrating
difficulty
defining
key
term
look
ing
instead
objectives
erisa
statute
guide
see
also
boggs
boggs
relying
conflict
principles
instead
erisa
clause
fear
failure
endorse
new
approach
explicitly
dillingham
supra
scalia
concurring
continue
produce
avalanche
litigation
de
buono
supra
courts
struggle
interpret
clause
lacks
discernible
content
ante
scalia
concurring
threatening
results
congress
intended
agree
justice
scalia
majority
however
plausible
principle
leads
conclusion
erisa
statute
issue
one
claim
erisa
entire
field
state
law
governing
inheritance
though
matters
relate
erisa
broadly
speaking
see
travelers
supra
neither
direct
conflict
washington
statute
erisa
one
nowhere
directly
contradicts
cf
ante
claiming
direc
conflic
erisa
washington
statute
cf
ante
relying
upon
relate
language
erisa
clause
correctly
points
erisa
requires
fiduciary
make
payments
beneficiary
accordance
documents
instruments
governing
plan
nothing
washington
statute
requires
contrary
rather
state
statute
simply
sets
forth
default
rule
interpreting
documentary
silence
statute
specifies
nonprobate
asset
pass
death
former
spouse
died
first
unless
instrument
governing
disposition
nonprobate
asset
expressly
provides
otherwise
rev
code
emphasis
added
rule
rule
interpretation
designed
carry
conflict
employee
likely
intention
revealed
plan
documents
direct
conflict
contradiction
washington
statute
terms
plan
documents
issue
david
egelhoff
investment
plan
provides
beneficiary
designation
invalid
benefits
paid
surviving
spouse
surviving
spouse
children
equal
shares
app
life
insurance
plan
silent
occurs
beneficiary
designation
invalid
washington
statute
fills
gaps
matters
documents
say
nothing
thus
washington
statute
specifies
beneficiary
designation
donna
egelhoff
wife
pension
plan
invalid
longer
person
donna
egelhoff
wife
see
appendix
infra
statute
adds
instance
funds
paid
children
potential
pension
plan
beneficiaries
direct
conflict
conclusion
rests
upon
claim
administrators
must
pay
benefits
beneficiaries
chosen
state
law
rather
identified
plan
documents
ante
mean
identified
anywhere
plan
documents
egelhoff
children
identified
recipients
pension
plan
documents
initial
designation
donna
egelhoff
wife
become
invalid
whether
initial
designation
became
invalid
upon
divorce
matter
plan
documents
silent
refer
state
law
determine
whether
given
name
makes
designation
become
invalid
makes
sense
background
property
inheritance
law
issue
say
example
written
name
potentially
ambiguous
set
forth
near
correct
space
refers
missing
person
perhaps
presumed
dead
name
written
time
employee
incompetent
name
refers
individual
entity
disqualified
law
say
rule
perpetuities
rules
prohibiting
murderer
benefiting
crime
congress
want
courts
create
federal
property
law
deal
problems
regardless
refer
background
state
law
circumstances
directly
conflict
explicit
erisa
provision
provision
erisa
forbids
reading
instrument
document
light
state
property
law
principles
event
case
plan
documents
explicitly
foresee
beneficiary
designation
may
become
invalid
specify
invalidating
circumstances
supra
refer
state
property
law
fill
blank
possibly
create
direct
conflict
plan
documents
majority
simply
denies
blank
fill
suggests
plan
documents
require
plan
pay
designated
beneficiary
circumstances
see
ante
nonetheless
open
question
namely
whether
designation
explicitly
refers
wife
remains
valid
divorce
question
genuine
important
unlike
imaginary
example
majority
plan
documents
answer
question
describe
occur
host
special
circumstances
mental
incompetence
intoxication
ambiguous
names
determine
whether
erisa
permits
state
law
answer
questions
requires
careful
examination
particular
state
law
light
erisa
basic
policies
see
ante
infra
necessary
inquiry
simply
announcing
direct
conflict
none
exists
also
complains
washington
statute
restricts
plan
choices
two
ante
difficult
take
complaint
seriously
two
choices
washington
gives
plan
comply
washington
rule
comply
washington
rule
choices
state
statute
asks
plan
choose
whether
intends
comply
statute
directly
conflicts
plan
quite
obviously
possible
impossible
comply
washington
statute
federal
law
geier
american
honda
motor
serious
question
whether
state
statute
stands
obstacle
accomplishment
execution
full
purposes
objectives
congress
ibid
quoting
hines
davidowitz
answering
question
must
remember
petitioner
overcome
strong
presumption
washington
statute
governs
family
property
law
field
traditional
state
regulation
courts
find
federal
unless
clear
manifest
purpose
congress
travelers
state
statute
major
damage
clear
substantial
federal
interests
hisquierdo
hisquierdo
quoting
yazell
one
seriously
argue
congress
clearly
resolved
question
us
damage
federal
interests
identifies
consists
added
administrative
burden
state
statute
imposes
upon
erisa
plan
administrators
claims
washington
statute
interferes
nationally
uniform
plan
administration
requiring
administrators
familiarize
state
statutes
ante
administrators
familiarize
state
law
event
answer
routine
legal
questions
whether
amounts
due
subject
garnishment
mackey
lanier
collection
agency
service
spouse
qualifies
child
employee
legally
dead
familiarizing
burden
somehow
overwhelming
plan
easily
avoid
resolving
divorce
revocation
issue
plan
documents
stating
expressly
state
law
apply
burden
thus
reduces
requirement
fall
primarily
upon
draft
model
erisa
documents
upon
many
administer
meager
burden
justify
state
law
enjoys
presumption
also
fears
administrators
make
difficult
determinations
parties
live
different
ante
whether
problem
major
practice
washington
statute
resolves
expressly
setting
forth
procedures
whereby
parties
courts
plan
administrator
responsible
resolving
see
ii
stating
plan
may
without
liability
refuse
pay
transfer
nonprobate
asset
beneficiaries
interested
persons
claiming
interest
consented
writing
payment
transfer
payment
transfer
authorized
directed
proper
jurisdiction
plan
may
condition
payment
provision
security
recipient
indemnify
plan
costs
plan
may
avoid
default
rule
expressing
intent
plan
documents
previously
made
clear
fact
state
law
impose
burde
administration
erisa
plans
necessarily
require
de
buono
mackey
supra
upholding
state
garnishment
law
notwithstanding
claim
benefit
plans
subjected
garnishment
incur
substantial
administrative
burdens
precisely
statute
requirement
distinguishes
myriad
state
impose
kind
burden
erisa
plans
de
buono
supra
quoting
travelers
indeed
one
looks
beyond
administrative
burden
one
finds
washington
statute
poses
obstacle
furthers
erisa
ultimate
objective
developing
fair
system
protecting
employee
benefits
cf
pension
benefit
guaranty
corporation
gray
washington
statute
transfers
employee
pension
assets
death
individuals
worker
likely
wanted
receive
many
jurisdictions
concluded
divorced
workers
often
prefer
child
rather
divorced
spouse
receive
assets
course
employee
secure
result
changing
beneficiary
form
requires
awareness
understanding
time
washington
many
jurisdictions
created
statutory
assumption
divorce
works
revocation
designation
favor
assumption
embodied
uniform
probate
code
consistent
human
experience
expertise
matter
concluded
often
serves
cause
ustice
langbein
nonprobate
revolution
future
law
succession
harv
rev
forbidding
washington
apply
assumption
permits
divorced
wife
already
acquired
divorce
proceeding
fair
share
couple
community
property
receive
addition
benefits
divorce
awarded
former
husband
specific
donna
egelhoff
already
received
business
ira
account
stock
david
received
among
things
pension
benefits
app
david
change
beneficiary
designation
pension
plan
life
insurance
plan
period
divorce
death
result
donna
receive
windfall
approximately
expense
david
children
state
washington
enacted
statute
prevent
precisely
kind
unfair
result
relying
inconsequential
administrative
burden
concludes
congress
required
finally
logic
decision
stop
divorce
revocation
laws
washington
statute
virtually
indistinguishable
traditional
rules
example
rules
using
presumptions
transfer
assets
case
simultaneous
deaths
rules
prohibit
husband
kills
wife
receiving
benefits
result
wrongful
death
particularly
difficult
believe
congress
wanted
latter
kind
statute
statutes
differ
one
us
slayer
statutes
like
statute
gover
payment
benefits
central
matter
plan
administration
ante
contrary
suggestion
ante
slayer
statutes
vary
state
state
details
like
divorce
revocation
statutes
compare
rev
stat
ann
requiring
proof
civil
proceeding
preponderance
evidence
standard
haw
rev
stat
code
ann
requiring
proof
clear
convincing
evidence
standard
rev
stat
tit
code
treating
judgment
conviction
conclusive
becomes
final
rev
stat
tit
rev
stat
ann
treating
judgment
conviction
conclusive
right
appeal
exhausted
haw
rev
stat
indeed
slayer
conflict
seem
serious
less
serious
conflict
us
slayer
statutes
permit
plans
opt
state
property
law
rule
erisa
analysis
said
must
respect
separate
spher
state
authority
fort
halifax
packing
coyne
quoting
alessi
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
stating
recognized
practical
importance
preserving
local
independence
retail
applying
analysis
care
statute
statute
line
line
order
determine
best
reconcile
federal
statute
language
purpose
federalism
need
preserve
state
autonomy
indeed
today
world
filled
legal
complexity
true
test
federalist
principle
may
lie
occasional
constitutional
effort
trim
congress
commerce
power
edges
morrison
protect
state
treasury
private
damages
action
board
trustees
univ
garrett
rather
many
statutory
cases
courts
interpret
mass
technical
detail
ordinary
diet
law
iowa
utilities
breyer
concurring
part
dissenting
part
case
field
issue
direct
conflict
state
federal
statutes
state
statute
poses
significant
obstacle
accomplishment
federal
objective
effort
squeeze
additional
force
erisa
words
relate
inconsistent
recent
case
law
state
statute
us
one
regarding
family
property
fiel
traditional
state
regulation
interpretive
presumption
particularly
strong
travelers
reasons
disagree
conclusion
consequently
dissent
appendix
opinion
breyer
footnotes
one
course
escape
conflict
plan
documents
require
making
payments
named
beneficiary
statute
requires
making
payments
someone
else
calling
statute
invalidation
designation
named
beneficiary
observing
plan
documents
silent
whether
invalidation
occur
upon
divorce
dissent
employs
approach
see
post
opinion
breyer
reading
clear
statement
ambiguous
metastatement
enables
one
avoid
kinds
conflicts
seemingly
contradictory
texts
suppose
example
statute
required
pension
benefits
paid
governor
washington
seems
inconsistent
plan
documents
erisa
inconsistency
disappears
one
calls
statute
invalidation
principal
alternate
beneficiary
designations
neither
plan
erisa
actually
says
beneficiaries
invalidated
favor
governor
approach
exploits
logical
inability
text
contain
complete
set
instructions
interpretation
vice
perhaps
virtue
depending
upon
one
point
view
draining
language
meaning
respondents
argue
case
disposition
dictated
washington
statute
consistent
specified
plan
documents
egelhoff
designated
donna
egelhoff
wife
beneficiary
life
insurance
policy
contend
egelhoffs
divorced
person
donna
egelhoff
wife
designated
person
definitionally
ceased
exist
brief
respondents
emphasis
original
see
also
post
breyer
dissenting
effect
respondents
ask
us
infer
egelhoff
meant
filled
form
donna
egelhoff
wife
rather
new
legal
person
donna
spouse
brief
respondents
mention
however
beneficiary
line
form
printed
text
reads
first
name
space
middle
initial
space
last
name
space
relationship
see
appendix
opinion
breyer
post
rather
impute
egelhoff
unnatural
indeed
absurd
literalism
suggested
respondents
conclude
simply
provided
information
requested
form
happenstance
relationship
line
beneficiary
name
think
evince
intent
designate
new
legal
person
dissent
observes
washington
statute
permits
plan
administrator
avoid
resolving
dispute
let
courts
parties
settle
matter
see
post
observation
presents
example
costs
delay
uncertainty
passed
beneficiaries
thereby
thwarting
erisa
objective
efficient
plan
administration
cf
fort
halifax
packing
coyne
contrary
dissent
suggestion
resolution
case
depends
one
view
federalism
see
post
called
upon
merely
interpret
erisa
text
erisa
fiduciary
shall
administer
plan
accordance
documents
instruments
governing
plan
washington
statute
conflicts
command
statute
way
fiduciary
administer
plan
according
terms
change
terms
supposed
follow