of any collective bargaining agreement, to amend, modify or terminate the Plan at anytime.” More importantly, the summaries provide that “[i]f any conflict arises between this description and the Plan document, or if we do not cover any point, the terms of the Plan document will always govern.” It is clear that the plan documents, not the plan summaries, control. As has already been explained, the plan documents clearly allow for the plans to be changed or can-celled. See Gable v. Sweetheart Cup Co., Inc., 35 F.3d 851, 856 (4th Cir.1994) (“[Ejxpress reservation of the company’s right to modify or terminate the participants’ benefits is plainly inconsistent with any alleged intent to vest those benefits.”); Anderson v. Alpha Portland Indus., Inc., 836 F.2d 1512, 1519 (8th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). In light of this Court’s holding regarding
holding that montanas constitution does not create a right to welfare holding that the employer intended to create a new employee welfare benefit plan holding that plaintiffs could not satisfy reliance element when health plan summaries explicitly reserved for defendant the right to change the plan holding that employers promise to provide welfare benefits until death of retiree did not create vested rights because employer had expressly reserved the right to terminate or amend the plan holding employers promise that retiree benefits will continue did not create vested lifetime benefits in the face of a termination clause