§ 4.3.7.4 THE STANDARD OF REVIEW

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 4.3.7.4 The Standard of Review. The standard of review that should be applied to decisions resulting from the intraplan claims procedure has been the subject of substantial judicial attention. Prior to 1989, the federal courts of appeal were in agreement that the standard of review to be applied should be arbitrariness or caprice on the part of the plan administrator. In 1989, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch,¹⁸⁰ under which the presumptive standard of review is de novo unless the plan documents expressly conveyed discretionary authority to a plan decision-maker. If that language exists, the Court will review the plan decision-maker's analysis for an abuse of discretion.

Subsequent to Firestone, the courts have struggled with identifying whether the plan document language was sufficient to confer discretion. In many cases, the court has found plan language to be adequate for this purpose.¹⁸¹ There are also a number of cases where the language was found insufficient to convey this discretion.¹⁸²

Courts applying the abuse of discretion standard have yet to develop an instance where it differs from the old arbitrary and capricious standard. If the trustee's interpretation of the relevant provisions of the plan documents is reasonable, it will not be disturbed by a reviewing court.¹⁸³ Under this standard of review, courts have continued to refrain from second-guessing the...