Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v. Jones et al
Filing
39
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 32 Motion to Deposit Funds, Motion to Dismiss Party, Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on January 26, 2016. (mll)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
SUN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF CANADA
V.
PLAINTIFF
CASE NO. 4:14-CV-4151
KAREN JONES, et al.
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Deposit Interest Amount, Motion to Dismiss, and
Motion for Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. ECF No. 32. Separate Defendant Karen Jones
has filed a response to the motion. ECF No. 34. Plaintiff has filed a reply. ECF No. 37. The Court
finds the motion ripe for consideration.1
Plaintiff moves the Court to deposit the interest amount of $2,933.33 into the registry of the
Court. On January 15, 2016, pursuant to the Court’s order (ECF No. 38), Plaintiff deposited the
interest amount of $2,933.33 into the registry of the Court. Thus, Plaintiff’s request regarding this
issue is moot.
Plaintiff further moves the Court to dismiss and discharge Plaintiff from further liability. No
party disputes Plaintiff’s argument that it is a disinterested stakeholder and should be dismissed from
the interpleader action. The Court finds that Plaintiff no longer has a stake in this matter because
it has deposited the insurance policy proceeds at issue plus interest into the registry of the Court.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is dismissed from this interpleader action and is discharged from further
1
The Court notes that Separate Defendant Martha Hammond has not filed a response to the motion, and the time for
response has passed.
liability on the insurance policy at issue. Defendants are enjoined from making further claims
against Plaintiff regarding the interpleaded funds.
Plaintiff also moves the Court for an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,921.00 and
costs in the amount of $508.00. The Court, however, declines to award attorney’s fees or costs in
this matter. Conflicting claims to benefits owed to beneficiaries under a life insurance policy arise
in the ordinary course of Plaintiff’s business. These potential conflicts are part of the business risk
assumed by insurance companies who provides such policies. Interpleader actions free the
stakeholder from the vexation of multiple suits and liability and are brought in the stakeholder’s own
self-interest. Because the initiation of this action is beneficial to Plaintiff, the Court denies the
request for attorney’s fees and costs. See Life Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Eufracio, 25 F. Supp. 2d 1179,
1183 (N.D. Iowa 2014) (quoting Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada v. Thomas, 735 F. Supp. 730 (W.D.
Mich. 1990)); see also In re Mandalay Shores Coop. Hous. Ass’n, 21 F.3d 380, 383 (11th Cir. 1994)
(recognizing a “normal course of business” exception to an award of attorney’s fees in an
interpleader action); Emcasco Ins. Co. v. Davis, 753 F. Supp. 1458, 1464-65 (W.D. Ark. 1990)
(“[B]ecause this interpleader action was brought primarily in [the stakeholder’s] self interest, it is
not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs.”).
For the reasons set forth in this order, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 32)
should be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff is DISMISSED from this
interpleader action.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 26th day of January, 2016.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge
-2-
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?