of receipt based on possession and one based on control may lead to two separate outcomes, the term was ambiguous. Id. at 625. The court applied the rule of contra proferentem because the plan at issue did not vest the administrator with discretion to interpret plan provisions and construed the term as possession through actual receipt of funds. Id. Under that interpretation, the court concluded funds rolled over into an IRA were not to be offset against a participant’s monthly disability benefit. Id. at 626. Unlike the court in Blankenship, we do not consider the word “receive” to be ambiguous in the context of the SPD for the LTD Plan. Cf. Day v. AT & T Disability Income Plan, 698 F.3d 1091, 1097 (9th Cir.2012), cert. denied — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 2010, 185 L.Ed.2d 868 (Apr.2013) (<HOLDING>). The rule of contra proferen-tem therefore
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 holding that one who is named in documents as plan administrator signs documents as plan administrator and assumes discretionary authority in the administration of the pension plan is a fiduciary holding pension benefits rolled into ira were received by plan participant for purposes of ltd benefit offset because administrator had discretionary authority to review plan holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant 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