The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Wall et al

Filing 36

CONSENT JUDGMENT entered as set out in order; all claims relating to this Group Policy and/or Death Benefits are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge William E. Cassady on 5/23/2011. (srr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA,

:
:

Plaintiff,
:
vs.

CA 11-0024-C
:

MICAH JAEL WALL, et al.,
:
Defendants.

CONSENT FINAL JUDGMENT
The above-entitled cause having come before the Court upon the
application of the parties for the entry of Judgment upon consent and a pro ami
hearing having been conducted on May 19, 2011, the parties’ Joint Motion to
Approve Final Judgment (Doc. 32) is GRANTED and this consent final judgment
is entered based upon the findings and conclusions set forth hereinafter.
This is an Interpleader action filed by The Prudential Insurance Company
of America (“Prudential”), pursuant to the provisions of Rule 22 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, to discharge its acknowledged liability for the payment
of death benefits in the amount of $125,000.00 payable on account of the death of
William Ellis (the “Insured”) under Prudential Group Policy number G-439391

AR issued to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (the “Group Policy”), which is an employee
welfare benefit plan regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”). (Doc. 1.) All defendants have been served with
process, are properly before the Court, and have appeared and asserted their
independent claims of entitlement. (See Docs. 3-6, 25 & 27.) On February 15, 2011,
Prudential deposited into the Registry of this Court the amount of $141,837.78
(the “Death Benefit”), consisting of the total death benefits payable under the
Group Policy in the amount of $125,000.00, together with accrued claim interest
in the amount of $16,837.78, in full satisfaction and discharge of all obligations of
Prudential to defendants herein and all other persons for the payment of the
Death Benefit under the Group Policy. (See Doc. 21.)
The defendants have agreed to resolve their respective claims of
entitlement and have determined who shall receive the Death Benefit. The Court
now enters its Judgment in this cause based upon the parties’ consent and
approval as set forth herein.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.

Prudential is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of

the State of New Jersey, with its principal office and place of business in Newark,
New Jersey. (Doc. 1, ¶ 1.)
2

2.

Defendant Micah Jael Wall (“Micah”), an adult individual, resides in

Daphne, Alabama. (Doc. 1, ¶ 2.) Micah has been adjudicated the common law
wife of the Insured (see Doc. 35, Exhibit 1, March 24, 2011 DECREE, at ¶ 2 (“Upon
consideration of all of the evidence presented in the case, the Court is convinced
that the evidence in favor of the common law marriage when it is weighed
against the evidence opposing the common law marriage produces a firm
conviction of each element required for a common law marriage and a high
probability that the Court’s conclusion is correct. The Court therefore determines
that Jael Wall has met her burden of proof in this Estate proceeding and that she
was the common law wife of William Edward Ellis.”)) and is named in this
action as a putative beneficiary (Doc. 1, ¶ 2). Micah is also the mother of
Defendants V.R.E. and W.C.E., minors. (Compare Doc. 1, at ¶¶ 3-4 with Doc. 27, at
3.)
3.

Defendant V.R.E., a minor, currently resides in Daphne, Alabama.

(Doc. 1, ¶ 3.) V.R.E. is the daughter of Micah and the Insured and is named in
this action as a putative beneficiary. (Id.)
4.

Defendant W.C.E., a minor, resides in Daphne, Alabama. (Doc. 1,

¶ 4.) W.C.E. is the son of Micah and the Insured and is named in this action as a
putative beneficiary. (Id.)
3

5.

Brenda Pierce, Esquire, was duly appointed by this Court as

guardian ad litem for the minor defendants, V.R.E. and W.C.E., on February 25,
2011, to represent their interests in this matter. (Doc. 25.)
6.

Prudential provided Group Life Insurance coverage through Group

Policy number G-43939-AR issued to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Doc. 1, Exhibit A.)
7.

At all times relevant hereto, the life of the Insured was covered

under the Group Policy for Basic Life Insurance Benefits in the amount of
$50,000.00 and Optional Life Insurance Benefits in the amount of $75,000.00. (See
id.)
8.

On or about October 26, 2005, the Insured designated Micah as the

beneficiary for the Basic Life Insurance Benefits payable under the Group Policy.
(Doc. 1, Exhibit B.)
9.

The Insured did not designate a beneficiary for the Optional Life

Insurance Benefits payable under the Group Policy at that time. (See id.)
10.

On or about October 26, 2009, the Insured died and, at that time,

total death benefits in the amount of $125,000.00 became payable. (Compare Doc.
1, Exhibit C with Exhibit A.)
11.

The Insured was found to have died as the result of “[t]oxic effects

of Methadone.” (Doc. 1, Exhibit C, Supplemental Medical Certification.)
4

12.

Following the Insured’s death and prior to filing this action,

Prudential was informed by the Baldwin County District Attorney’s Office that
Micah may be charged with manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide and
unlawful distribution of a controlled substance in connection with the Insured’s
death.
13.

To date, Micah has only been charged with negligent homicide in

connection with the Insured’s death. (See, e.g., Doc. 1, ¶ 17.)
14.

The October 26, 2005 beneficiary designation for Basic Life Insurance

Benefits was the only designation in effect at the time of the Insured’s death. (See
Doc. 1, Exhibit B.)
15.

The Group Policy provides that any amount of insurance for which

there is no beneficiary “will be payable to the first of the following: [] (a)
surviving spouse; (b) surviving child(ren) in equal shares; (c) surviving parents
in equal shares; (d) surviving siblings in equal shares; (e) estate.” (Doc. 1, Exhibit
A, at 19.)
16.

On or about December 18, 2009, Micah submitted a claim for the

Basic Life Insurance Benefits portion of the Death Benefit. (Doc. 1, Exhibit D.)
17.

On or about January 2, 2010, Micah also submitted a Preferential

Beneficiary’s Affidavit for the Optional Life Insurance Benefits portion of the
5

Death Benefit on behalf of herself as the Insured’s common law spouse and
V.R.E. and W.C.E., the Insured’s children. (Doc. 1, Exhibit E.)
18.

Micah has alleged that she is entitled to the Death Benefit because

she has not been charged with any crime in connection with the Insured’s death
which would result in a finding that she “feloniously and intentionally” killed
the Insured. (See, e.g., Doc. 27, at 3-4.) Further, Micah alleges that she is entitled to
the Optional Life Insurance Benefits portion of the Death Benefit because she is
the Insured’s common law spouse. (Compare id. at 4 with Doc. 35, Exhibit 1,
DECREE, at ¶ 2.)
19.

Prudential claims no title or interest in the Death Benefit payable

under the Group Policy on account of the death of the Insured and has filed this
action only to protect itself from the possibility of multiple liability in connection
with the Death Benefit due to the competing claims made by or available to
Micah, on the one hand, and the minor defendants, on the other. (See, e.g., Doc. 1,
¶¶ 26-28 & pp. 5-6.)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.

This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and this cause of action.

No questions exist as to misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties.
2.

All parties are properly represented and properly before this Court.
6

3.

This is a proper action in Interpleader under the provisions of Rule

22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Prudential has interpleaded the
parties and deposited into the Registry of this Court the Death Benefit, together
with accrued claim interest thereon, in full satisfaction and discharge of its
liability to defendants and all other persons by reason of the death of the Insured.
4.

The allocation, distribution and disbursement of the Death Benefit

on deposit in the Registry of this Court as hereinafter provided and consented to
by the defendants represents a fair and reasonable settlement of all adverse and
conflicting claims of entitlement asserted in this cause and all claims asserted
against Prudential regarding the Group Policy and/or payment of the Death
Benefit on account of the death of the Insured.
5.

Brenda Pierce, Esquire, in her capacity as court-appointed guardian

ad litem for the minor defendants, V.R.E. and W.C.E., has authority to fully bind
the minors’ interests in this matter and accepts the distribution as described
herein in full satisfaction of any claims that the minors might otherwise have
held or asserted against Prudential related to the Group Policy and/or the Death
Benefit, including any accrued claim interest thereon.
6.

During the pro ami hearing conducted on May 19, 2011 in accordance

with Alabama law, compare Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260, 1265 (11th Cir. 2001)
7

(“Under Alabama law, a hearing to determine the fairness of a settlement must
be held in order for that settlement to be binding on a minor party, even where
the minor is represented by a next friend or other guardian.”) with Large v. Hayes
ex rel. Nesbitt, 534 So.2d 1101, 1105 (Ala. 1988) (“This Court has recognized the
special nature of an attempted settlement of a minor’s claim. Before such a
settlement can be approved, there must be a hearing, with an extensive
examination of the facts, to determine whether the settlement is in the best
interest of the minor.”), Ms. Pierce, as guardian ad litem for the minor defendants,
set forth in detail the reasons why this settlement is fair and in the best interests
of the minor children of the Insured, V.R.E. and W.C.E. The Court agrees with
Ms. Pierce’s assessment and specifically finds that the parties’ settlement of this
matter is fair and in the best interests of the minor defendants, V.R.E. and W.C.E.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as
follows:
1.

This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and this cause.

2.

This is a proper action in Interpleader pursuant to the provisions of

Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3.

Prudential is authorized and empowered to deposit the Death

Benefit into the Registry of this Court and having deposited the Death Benefit,
8

together with accrued claim interest, is hereby declared and determined to have
satisfied and discharged all obligations to the defendants and all other persons
whomsoever related to the Group Policy and/or the payment of the Death
Benefit under the Group Policy on account of the death of the Insured.
4.

The Clerk of Court is hereby authorized and directed to disburse the

Death Benefit on deposit in the Registry of this Court as follows:
a.

$7,500 of the Death Benefit shall be distributed into an

interest-bearing account in the name of V.R.E. to be held by the Court until
V.R.E. reaches the age of majority, at which time she can apply to the Court for
disbursement of these funds;1
b.

$7,500 of the Death Benefit shall be distributed into an

interest-bearing account in the name of W.C.E. to be held by the Court until
W.C.E. reaches the age of majority, at which time he can apply to the Court for
disbursement of these funds;2
c.

The remaining Death Benefit, in the amount of $126,837.78,

together with any interest which has accrued on the Death Benefit since its
When V.R.E. reaches majority she should file a motion with this Court
requesting disbursement of the funds set aside for her benefit and attach thereto proof
of age and her social security number.
1

Likewise, when W.C.E. reaches majority he should file a motion with this
Court requesting disbursement of the funds set aside for his benefit and attach thereto
proof of age and his social security number.
2

9

deposit into the Court’s registry, less the Court’s 10% managing assessment,
shall be issued to “Stankoski, LLP, as Attorneys for Micah Wall” and sent to
Joshua P. Myrick, Esquire, Stankoski, LLP, P.O. Box 529, Fairhope, Alabama
36533.
5.

Within fourteen (14) days of Prudential’s receipt of a copy of this

Consent Judgment executed and filed by the Court and receipt of an invoice
setting forth the fees incurred by Brenda Pierce, Esquire, as guardian ad litem in
this matter, Prudential shall make payment of Ms. Pierce’s fees directly to her.
However, any such payment pursuant to this paragraph shall not exceed $800.00.
6.

Micah, V.R.E and W.C.E., and all parties claiming by, through or

under them are hereby permanently enjoined from making and release
Prudential from any further actual or implied claims, demands and causes of
action, asserted or unasserted, express or implied, foreseen or unforeseen, real or
imaginary, suspected or unsuspected, known or unknown, liquidated or
unliquidated, of any kind or nature or description whatsoever, that Micah, V.R.E.
and W.C.E., and all parties claiming by, through or under them, jointly and
severally, ever had, presently have, may have, or claim or assert to have, or
hereinafter have, may have, or claim or assert to have, against Prudential in
respect to the Group Policy or the payment of the Death Benefit under the Policy.
10

7.

Upon entry of this Judgment by the Court, all claims of Micah,

V.R.E. and W.C.E., and all parties claiming by, through or under them against
Prudential and each other relating to the Group Policy and/or Death Benefit
shall be dismissed with prejudice.
8.

Upon entry of this Judgment by the Court, all claims of Prudential

against Micah, V.R.E. and W.C.E., and all parties claiming by, through or under
them relating to the Group Policy and/or Death Benefit shall be dismissed with

11

prejudice.
DONE this the 23rd day of May, 2011.
s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS JUDGMENT, ITS TERMS, CONTENTS AND THE ENTRY THEREOF ARE
CONSENTED TO BY ALL PARTIES.

12