Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company v. Adams et al
Filing
52
ORDER: Defendant Paul J. Adams Jr.'s Motion for Summary Judgment 44 is GRANTED. Defendant Carole Ducharme's Motion for Summary Judgment 45 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to distribute the $133,493.03 deposited by Hartford Life and Accident Insurance (see Doc. 34 ) to Defendant Paul J. Abrams, Jr., on behalf of his son, D.A., and terminate this action. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 7/12/2018. (REK)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Hartford Life
Company,
10
13
14
Accident
Insurance
No. CV-16-04534-PHX-GMS
ORDER
Plaintiff,
11
12
and
v.
Paul J. Adams, Jr., et al.,
Defendants.
15
Pending before the Court are Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment.
16
(Docs. 44, 45). The Court grants Defendant Paul J. Adams Jr.’s motion and denies
17
Carole Ducharme’s motion.
18
BACKGROUND
19
Decedent Michele Adams and Defendant Paul J. Adams were previously married
20
and had a son named D.A. Ms. Adams and Mr. Adams divorced in September 2006.
21
The divorce decree stated that “it is appropriate for both Husband and Wife to have life
22
insurance policies naming the child as a beneficiary[,]” and the court ordered “that both
23
parties provide proof of insurance to the other party within 90 days of entry of this
24
Decree” and that “the minimum amount of the life insurance policy benefit shall be not
25
less than $250,000.00.” (Doc. 48 at 32). In September 2011, Ms. Adams acquired life
26
insurance from Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company (“Hartford”) through her
27
employer. The policy carried benefits of $141,000, and Ms. Adams named her mother,
28
Defendant Carole Ducharme, as the beneficiary.
1
Ms. Adams died on July 30, 2015, triggering the payment of her life insurance
2
policy. Due to the death of the mother, Mr. Adams became the legal guardian of D.A. A
3
few months after Ms. Adams’ death, Ms. Ducharme submitted a claim for the life
4
insurance benefits, and Mr. Adams submitted a claim for the same benefits on behalf of
5
D.A.
6
insurance proceeds. Hartford then filed the Complaint in Interpleader under 28 U.S.C.
7
§ 1332 against Mr. Adams, on behalf of his son D.A., and Carole Ducharme as the
8
competing claimants to the death benefits.
Early in 2016, Arizona Superior Court granted Mr. Adams’ motion to stay
9
10
DISCUSSION
I.
Legal Standard
11
The Court grants summary judgment when the movant “shows that there is no
12
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
13
of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the
14
initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and
15
identifying those portions of [the record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a
16
genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
17
Contract interpretation in Arizona is a question of law, and summary judgment is proper
18
in those cases focused on contract interpretation. See Williamette Crushing Co. v. State
19
ex rel. Dep't of Transportation, 188 Ariz. 79, 81, 932 P.2d 1350, 1352 (App. 1997).
20
II.
Analysis
21
The parties do not dispute facts concerning the divorce decree or the insurance
22
policy. The parties only dispute a question of law concerning whether the divorce decree
23
invalidates Ms. Adams’ designation of her mother as the beneficiary of her insurance
24
policy contract with Hartford.
25
Arizona law to determine and make effective the intention of the contracting parties.
26
Taylor v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 175 Ariz. 148, 158 (1993). A divorce decree is
27
a final judgment, adjudicated by a competent court, and carries the weight of res judicata.
28
De Gryse v. De Gryse, 135 Ariz. 335, 337 (1983).
This Court is required to interpret a contract under
-2-
1
The divorce decree unambiguously mandates that decedent Michele Adams have a
2
life insurance policy naming D.A. as the beneficiary. (Doc. 48 at 32).
3
violated the divorce decree when she named her mother as the beneficiary of the Hartford
4
life insurance plan. Ms. Ducharme argues that the statute of limitations in A.R.S. § 12-
5
1551 bars Mr. Adams’ claim on behalf of D.A., but that statute of limitations “does not
6
apply to . . . directives made in a divorce decree that are not judgments for payments of
7
sums certain . . . .” Jensen v. Beirne, 241 Ariz. 225, 228 (App. 2016). Although Ms.
8
Ducharme has stated that she would set up a trust for D.A. with the death benefits, she
9
would not have a legal obligation to use the payment on D.A’s behalf, and she is not
10
D.A.’s parent or guardian. Because the divorce decree directs that D.A. be the designated
11
beneficiary of the life insurance policy, the Court holds that the death benefits be paid to
12
D.A., and Defendant Paul J. Adams, Jr. may receive the distribution as D.A.’s legal
13
guardian.
14
15
16
17
Ms. Adams
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Paul J. Adams Jr.’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 44) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Carole Ducharme’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 45) is DENIED.
18
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to distribute the
19
$133,493.03 deposited by Hartford Life and Accident Insurance (see Doc. 34) to
20
Defendant Paul J. Adams, Jr., on behalf of his son, D.A., and terminate this action.
21
Dated this 12th day of July, 2018.
22
23
24
Honorable G. Murray Snow
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
-3-
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?