policy. See Hamill v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., No. 11-CV-1464, 2013 WL 27548, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2013) (noting importance of SPD’s omission from policy’s integration clause referring to “[t]he entire Group Contract”); Francis v. Anacomp, Inc. Accidental Death & Dismemberment Plan, No. 10-CV-467, 2011 WL 4102143, at *4-5 (S.D.Cal. Sept. 14, 2011) (rejecting argument that ACF was an enforceable plan document where policy purported to be fully integrated); Jobe v. Med. Life. Ins. Co., 598 F.3d 478, 486 (8th Cir.2010) (reviewing multiple “plan documents” and concluding that fully-integrated policy “controls over the inconsistent grant of discretion to the administrator in the summary plan description”); Grosz-Salomon v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). This Court likewise concludes that the ACF’s
holding spd unenforceable where policys integration clause limited entire contract to policy and applications holding an entire arbitration clause is void and arbitration cannot be compelled where contract contained unconscionable clause and has a nonseverability clause holding that nothing necessarily prevents a court from finding an arbitration clause unenforceable in a contract that it later finds is enforceable holding provision unenforceable as against public policy where the written employment contract was signed by both parties based on reasonable consideration and reasonable as to time and territory restrictions holding that a contract to sell real property was unenforceable because it did not contain a sufficient description of land subject to contract