The U.S. Supreme Court case CNH Industrial NV v. Reese, 2017 revolved around the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between CNH Industrial and its retired employees. The retirees claimed that their health care benefits were vested for life under the CBA, while CNH argued that these benefits expired when the CBA did in May 2004. The Sixth Circuit initially ruled in favor of the retirees using a presumption rule known as "Yard-Man inference", which assumes retiree benefits are intended to vest for life unless there is clear language to contrary within an agreement. However, this decision was reversed by the Supreme Court on grounds that it violated precedent set by M&G Polymers USA, LLC v Tackett (2015), where it was held Yard-Man inference violates ordinary contract principles by placing a thumb on scale in favor of vested retiree benefits. Instead, courts should interpret CBAs based on ordinary principles of contract law without any presumptions about parties' intentions. In conclusion, Supreme Court sided with CNH stating no provision existed within CBA indicating lifetime guarantee for healthcare benefits after expiration date.

In the dissenting opinion for CNH Industrial NV v. Reese, Justice Ginsburg disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). She argued that it was not clear whether or not retiree health-care benefits were intended to vest and continue indefinitely. The language in this CBA differed from previous agreements examined by the court, which explicitly limited such benefits to a certain time frame. In contrast, this CBA did not specify an end date for these benefits nor did it tie them directly to pension eligibility as other CBAs had done. Therefore, she believed that there was ambiguity about how long these benefits should last and suggested remanding back to lower courts for further examination using traditional contract principles rather than applying general assumptions about what parties typically intend.