to ensure the integrity of pension and welfare plans courts should confine the benefits to the terms of the plans as written. Pohl, 956 F.2d at 128. Therefore, it is inappropriate to fashion a common law rule that would override the express terms of a private plan unless the overridden plan provision conflicts with statutory provisions or other policies underlying ERISA. Id. In this case, applying federal common law to override the Plan’s reimbursement provision would contravene, rather than effectuate, the underlying purposes of ERISA because the express terms of the Plan provide for the appropriate distribution of attorney’s fees. See Coleman v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 969 F.2d 54, 58 (4th Cir.1992); Ryan by Capria-Ryan v. Federal Express Corp., 78 F.3d 128, 127-28 (3d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Those cases which have applied the federal
holding that the federal common fund doctrine may not be applied in contravention of a plans terms holding the doctrine applied in a case of mistake holding that a termination of an erisa plans benefits must be based upon the plans terms and language holding that motion to adjudicate lien was not preempted by erisa and illinois common fund doctrine overrode plan language and would reduce plans reimbursement of expenses paid for insured holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans