is the plan administrator, Contromatics, not the insurers, who has the duty of distributing the required summary plan description (“S.P.D.”) to all insureds. 29 U.S.C. § 1021(a). In Moran v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 872 F.2d 296 (9th Cir.1989), for example, the court held that the insurer who was not the plan administrator, did not bear the fiduciary burden of S.P.D. distribution. Similarly in Maxa v. John Alden Life Ins. Co., 972 F.2d 980, 985-86 (8th Cir.1992), the court held that ERISA did not “require that the appellee had a duty individually to warn ... each and all of the members of the plans which it insured that their benefits would be reduced according to the plan’s coordination of benefits provision____” Accord Stahl v. Tony’s Bldg. Materials, 875 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Yet Iwans does not contest that the primary
holding that a termination of an erisa plans benefits must be based upon the plans terms and language holding that a state law requiring benefit plans to include minimum benefits related to erisa plans holding that erisa employee benefits plan was subrogated to all claims by covered individual against third party for all payments made by the plan holding that summary plan description and not individual notification is all that erisa requires of plans insurer holding that a plan provision stating that the summary plan description and summaries of material modifications  are hereby incorporated by reference and constitute a part of the plan acted to incorporate into the plan a limitations provision found only in the summary plan description