Kubek v. Teachers Retirement, et al

Filing 175

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/21/11. (djy, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

RISOLETA M. KUBEK,
Plaintiff,
v.
NORA KUBEK JONES,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:04cv29-MHT
(WO)

OPINION
Plaintiff Risoleta M. Kubek brought this lawsuit
against a number of defendants, alleging that each played
a role in depriving her of benefits she was entitled to
receive under the retirement and life-insurance policies
of her deceased ex-husband. This court has jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question) and 1367
(supplemental).
This lawsuit is now before the court on defendants
John Hancock Life Insurance Company’s and Verbie Curtis’s
motions for summary judgment against Kubek.

Rule 56(a)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that

summary

judgment

is

appropriate

where

“there

is

no

genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

“At

the summary judgment stage, facts must be viewed in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party,” but “only
if there is a ‘genuine’ dispute as to those facts.
v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).

Scott

For the reasons

that follow, the motions shall be granted.
According

to

Kubek,

defendant

Nora

Kubek

Jones

amended Kubek’s ex-husband’s beneficiary designations by
falsely obtaining a “Limited Power of Attorney” and a
“Notice of Survivor Benefits Cancellation.”
At the time of Kubek’s ex-husband’s death, John
Hancock

held

the

disputed

life-insurance

policy.

Pursuant to the change-of-beneficiary form, John Hancock
paid

the

survivor

benefits

to

Jones.

Kubek

seeks

indemnification on a state-law theory that John Hancock
had a duty to investigate the authenticity of the changeof-beneficiary form.

2

Curtis, at the time a personnel specialist at Troy
State

University,

beneficiary forms.

processed

the

disputed

change-of-

Kubek claims that Curtis is liable

under federal due-process law for her “unskillful acts”
in handling those forms.

Second Amended Complaint (Doc.

No. 36), ¶ 71.
As to the merits, John Hancock argues that Alabama
law

protects

an

indemnification.
insurer

pays

payments
claims

company

against

double

Alabama law provides that, once an

benefits

shall

under

insurance

fully

the

pursuant
discharge

policy

or

to
the

a

policy,

insurer

contract,

“such

from

unless,

all

before

payment is made, the insurer has received at its home
office written notice by, or on behalf of, some other
person that such other person claims to be entitled to
such payment or some interest in the policy or contract.”
1975 Ala. Code § 27-14-24.
In Fortis Benefits Ins. Co. v. Pinkley, 926 So.2d 981
(Ala. 2005), the Alabama Supreme Court addressed whether

3

an insurer was liable to an individual claiming benefits
on the basis of a forged change-of-beneficiary request
form.

The answer was an emphatic no.

The Alabama

Supreme Court ruled that, when a life insurer “receives
a change-of-beneficiary request form, regular on its face
and executed by a person purporting to be the owner of
the

policy,”

authenticity
benefits

it
of

under

has
the

the

no

“duty

signature

policy.”

to

investigate

before
at

Id.

paying

984.

the
death

Thus,

an

insurance company is not liable for disbursing benefits
on the basis of a forgery, provided that it acts in good
faith.
Relying on an agency theory of liability, Kubek
argues

that

Hancock--had

Curtis--and,
sufficient

by

notice

implication,
that

beneficiary form was a forgery.
Curtis’s

prior

indicated

that

beneficiary.

interactions
she

was

to

with
remain

the

John

change-of-

Kubek contends that
Kubek’s
the

ex-husband

life-insurance

Kubek asserts that the listing of dementia

4

on the death certificate should have alerted John Hancock
to the possibility of fraud in the change-of-beneficiary
form.
Pinkley controls this case. Even with the assumption
that Curtis was acting as John Hancock’s agent, the
change-of-beneficiary form was “regular on its face” and
John Hancock therefore had no affirmative duty under
state law to investigate whether it was a forgery.

Kubek

has raised no genuine issue of material fact regarding
whether John Hancock acted in bad faith in disbursing
benefits.

Once

John

Hancock

paid

Jones

the

life-

insurance benefits, Kubek’s only recourse is against
Jones.

Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of John

Hancock is proper.
Kubek sues Curtis in her individual capacity for her
“unskillful acts” in handling the change-of-beneficiary
forms.

Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 36)c, ¶ 71.

Curtis argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity.
Specifically, Curtis submits that she was under no duty

5

to investigate whether the change-of-beneficiary forms
were forgeries.

Kubek responds by citing federal due-

process notice jurisprudence and by questioning Curtis’s
competence.
Curtis

has

the

better

of

this

argument

reasons already discussed by this court.

and

for

With regard to

the other state defendants already dismissed from this
suit, this court held that, because Kubek “ha[d] not
alleged

facts

sufficient

to

demonstrate

that

the

individual defendants violated a constitutional right, it
follows that the right she asserts was violated was not
clearly established.”

Kubek v. Teachers’ Retirement

System of Alabama, 2008 WL 696870 *3 (M.D. Ala. March 13,
2008); see also id. (“Under United States Supreme Court
precedent,

courts

must

answer

two

questions

when

determining whether an official is entitled to qualified
immunity.

First, did the public official violate a

federal statutory or constitutional right?

...

Second,

if so, was that right clearly established at the time the

6

official derogated the plaintiff's right?”) (citations
omitted).

The facts alleged against Curtis are even more

sparse, with one allegation ending mid-sentence.
Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 36), ¶ 75.

Second

Accordingly,

summary judgment in favor of Curtis is proper.

***
An appropriate summary judgment in favor of John
Hancock and Curtis and against Kubek will be entered.
DONE, this the 21st day of September, 2011.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE