Pearlie Green, et al v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Comp


Per Curiam OPINION filed : AFFIRMED, decision not for publication pursuant to local rule 206. Danny J. Boggs, Circuit Judge; Richard Allen Griffin, Circuit Judge and Judith M. Barzilay, International Trade Judge.

Download PDF
Case: 11-5128 Document: 006111449319 Filed: 09/28/2012 Page: 1 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 12a1038n.06 No. 11-5128 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PEARLIE M. GREEN; GREGORY A. BURKS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FILED Sep 28, 2012 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE BEFORE: BOGGS and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges; and BARZILAY, Judge.* PER CURIAM. In this diversity insurance-contract dispute arising under Tennessee law, plaintiffs Pearlie M. Green and Gregory A. Burks appeal the district court’s order granting defendant Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff Green applied for and obtained an Accidental Death Insurance Policy from Mutual. The policy covered the applicant, the applicant’s “Spouse,” and the applicant’s dependent children. On the insurance application, Green listed Robert Billups as her spouse and plaintiff Burks as the beneficiary. As it turned out, Green and Billups were not legally married. Thus, when Billups died in a motorcycle accident two years later, Mutual, after a brief investigation * The Honorable Judith M. Barzilay, Senior Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. Case: 11-5128 Document: 006111449319 Filed: 09/28/2012 Page: 2 No. 11-5128 Green, et al. v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co. of the matter, denied coverage and refused to pay benefits arising from his death because he was not an insured person under the policy. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Tennessee state court alleging seven claims, including, inter alia, breach of contract, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and fraud. Mutual removed the case to federal district court on the basis of diversity of citizenship and then filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint. The district court granted defendant’s motion as to all of the claims and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs now appeal. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, this court determines that a panel opinion further addressing the issues raised would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We therefore affirm the district court’s decision for the reasons stated in that court’s opinion. AFFIRMED. -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?