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

Filing

Per Curiam OPINION filed : AFFIRMED, decision not for publication pursuant to local rule 206.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.

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NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION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-