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
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?