does not preclude the Plan from enforcing its subrogation and reimbursement provisions, we next turn to whether the Plan document unambiguously and reasonably requires the Gourleys to reimburse the Plan. The Plan document provides, “The Plan Administrator shall have discretionary authority to construe and interpret the terms and provisions of the Plan ... and to decide disputes which may arise relative to a Plan Participants rights, and to decide questions of Plan interpretation and those of fact relating to the Plan.” The Supreme Court has directed courts to review a self-funded ERISA plan’s interpretation of its contracts governing benefit payments under an arbitrary and capricious standard. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Applying general principles of trust law, the
holding court must review de novo companys denial of benefits unless benefit plan gives administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to construe terms of plan in which case courts review a benefits denial under an arbitrary and capricious standard holding that a heightened arbitrary and capricious standard of review applied to the decision to deny benefits under the erisa plan holding that a denial of benefits will not be reviewed de novo where the language of an erisa plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan holding that arbitrary and capricious standard applies to section 1132a1b denial ofbenefits claims if the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan holding that because no plan document granted discretion to the plan administrator and because the fiduciaries had not expressly delegated their discretionary authority to the plan administrator the district court properly employed the de novo standard of review