Bainum et al v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company et al
Filing
27
OPINION AND ORDER granting 20 Motion to Remand. This case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Pike County, Arkansas. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on March 27, 2018. (hnc) Modified on 3/27/2018 to edit text (hnc).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
TIMOTHY BAINUM and MARY LYNDA ROBBINS,
as Co-Trustees of the Bainum Family Insurance Trust
v.
PLAINTIFFS
No. 6:18-CV-06010
THE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
and AGENCY SERVICES OF ARKANSAS, INC.
DEFENDANTS
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (Doc. 20) and brief in support (Doc. 21).
Defendant The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (“Lincoln”) filed a response in
opposition (Doc. 26). For the following reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ motion to remand
(Doc. 20) should be granted.
I.
Background
In 2002, Lincoln issued a $10 million life insurance policy (“Policy”) to the Bainum Family
Insurance Trust (“Trust”). The Policy insured the life of Evea Bainum. Agency Services of
Arkansas, Inc. (“ASA”) brokered the Policy on behalf of the Trust.
The Trust made periodic premium payments between February 2002 and February 2008,
and the Policy accumulated a “cash value” of $2,038,922. In February 2008, the Trust stopped
paying premiums because the cash value of the Policy was sufficient to make these payments.
In December 2013, the Trust asked ASA to prepare an illustration showing the cash value
of the policy. In response, ASA prepared an illustration which showed that the policy would lapse
sometime in 2015 if no more premiums were paid.
On February 9, 2015 and March 5, 2015, Lincoln sent letters to the Trust indicating that
the Trust had missed a premium payment and that if the payment was not made by April 9, 2015,
1
the Policy would be cancelled. On April 15, 2015, Lincoln sent a letter to the Trust stating that it
was cancelling the policy.
Plaintiffs allege that they did not receive any of these letters because they were mailed to
the Trust’s previous address which was no longer in use. Plaintiffs also allege that ASA received
the letters and knew that they has been sent to the Trust’s previous address, but did not inform
Plaintiffs that the Policy would be cancelled if they did not make a premium payment or that the
Policy was subsequently cancelled.
Plaintiffs learned that Lincoln had cancelled the Policy on September 28, 2016. On
October 14, 2016, Evea Bainum died. Lincoln refused to pay the $10 million policy benefit.
On August 11, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a complaint (Doc. 1-1) in the Circuit Court of Pike
County, Arkansas. Plaintiffs brought claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and
breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing against Lincoln. Plaintiffs brought claims for
breach of contract and negligence against ASA.
On January 22, 2018, Lincoln filed a notice of removal (Doc. 1) asserting that Plaintiffs
fraudulently joined ASA to evade the jurisdiction of this Court. On February 20, 2018, Plaintiffs
filed their motion to remand this case to Circuit Court of Pike County, Arkansas (Doc. 20).
II.
Legal Standard
Plaintiffs Timothy Bainum and Mary Lynda Robbins, who bring this suit in their capacity
as co-trustees of the Trust, are both citizens of Arkansas. ASA is also a citizen of Arkansas, its
place of incorporation and its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Lincoln is a
citizen of both Indiana, its place of incorporation, and Pennsylvania, its principal place of business.
Id. As Plaintiffs and ASA are citizens of the same state, ASA's presence in the litigation defeats
federal diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Lincoln removed this case to federal
2
court arguing (1) ASA was fraudulently joined in the state court action to defeat federal diversity
jurisdiction; (2) ASA should therefore be dismissed as a defendant; and (3) once ASA is dismissed,
subject matter jurisdiction in this Court will be proper due to the presence of complete diversity of
citizenship among the remaining parties.
“[A] plaintiff cannot defeat a defendant’s ‘right of removal’ by fraudulently joining a
defendant who has ‘no real connection with the controversy.’” Knudson v. Sys. Painters, Inc., 634
F.3d 968, 976 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting Chesapeake & Ohio Ry Co. v. Cockrell, 232 U.S. 146, 152
(1914)). Fraudulent joinder occurs when a plaintiff files a frivolous or illegitimate claim against
a non-diverse defendant solely to prevent removal. Filla v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 336 F.3d 806, 809
(8th Cir. 2003). To prove fraudulent joinder, the removing defendant must show that there is no
“reasonable basis for predicting that the state law might impose liability based upon the facts
involved.” Junk v. Terminix Int'l Co., 628 F.3d 439, 446 (8th Cir. 2010). “Where applicable state
precedent precludes the existence of a cause of action against a defendant, joinder is fraudulent
. . . . However if there is a ‘colorable’ cause of action—that is, if the state law might impose liability
on the resident defendant under the facts alleged—then there is no fraudulent joinder.” Filla, 336
F.3d at 810. The party invoking federal jurisdiction has the burden of proving jurisdiction is proper
by a preponderance of the evidence. See Knudson, 634 F.3d at 975. Because this action was
removed to federal court by Lincoln, the burden is theirs.
III.
Analysis
Plaintiffs argue that ASA was not fraudulently joined because they have stated a colorable
claim for negligence against ASA under Arkansas law.1 The Court finds that the factual allegations
1
Plaintiffs make a number of additional arguments. However, because the Court finds
that Plaintiffs stated a colorable claim for negligence and remands the case to the Circuit Court,
these arguments need not be addressed.
3
in Plaintiffs’ complaint (Doc. 1-1) provide a reasonable basis for predicting that ASA might be
liable for negligence under Arkansas law.
To prevail on a negligence claim under Arkansas law, a plaintiff must plead and prove that
the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty, and the breach was
the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. See Branscumb v. Freeman, 200 S.W.3d 411, 416
(Ark. 2004).
Persuasive authority states that in Arkansas “an agent may be negligent for failing to give
the insured notice of an impending cancellation of a policy.” 1 Arkansas Law Of Damages § 24:2
(citing Gist v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 641 F. Supp. 539 (W.D. Ark. 1986) (“If [insurance agent]
had received notice of cancellation, and such notice was also mailed to [client] but never received
by him, [insurance agent] might be deemed negligent in not informing [client] of the notice, as in
this situation the policy would be cancelled without [client] being aware of it. . . . the court refuses
to believe that reasonable people could not conclude that a person in [insurance agent’s] position
here, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, would notify the plaintiff of an impending
cancellation of his insurance policy.”)). While neither party has offered controlling Arkansas law
regarding this duty, the Court is persuaded that the argument that an agent has a duty to give the
insured notice of an impending cancellation of a policy is not frivolous. Lincoln does not explicitly
concede that ASA owed this duty to Plaintiffs, but Lincoln only argues that “even if such a duty
existed, ASA fulfilled any such duty.”
Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that ASA breached its duty by not sending Lincoln’s 2015
letters to the Trust or informing the Trust of the letters.2 Plaintiffs further allege that had ASA
2
Plaintiffs also allege that ASA had and breached a duty to notify Lincoln that it sent the
letters to the incorrect address. The Court need not address this additional negligence argument.
4
informed the Trust that Lincoln intended to cancel the Policy, the Trust would have acted to
prevent the Policy from lapsing. These allegations provide a reasonable basis for predicting that
Plaintiffs might be able to prove that ASA owed a duty to Plaintiffs, ASA breached its duty, and
the breach was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries.
Lincoln argues that Plaintiffs have not stated a colorable claim for negligence because ASA
fulfilled any duty it had to Plaintiffs by informing them that the policy would lapse in 2015 if no
more premiums were paid. While this argument raises a factual dispute as to the merits of whether
ASA is liable for negligence, Lincoln fails to demonstrate that Plaintiffs’ negligence claim against
ASA was frivolous or illegitimate. Plaintiffs need not show that state law would impose liability
on ASA, but simply that state law might impose liability on ASA. As discussed above, the
allegations in the complaint (Doc. 1-1) provide a reasonable basis for predicting that Plaintiffs
might be able to prove that ASA was negligent.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs have made a colorable negligence claim against ASA and Lincoln
has failed to prove fraudulent joinder.
IV.
Costs and Fees
Plaintiffs request that they be awarded their costs and attorneys’ fees accrued due to
unwarranted removal. “An order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any
actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
“Absent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorney's fees under § 1447(c) only where the
removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin v. Franklin
Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). The Court finds that Lincoln did not have an objectively
reasonable basis for seeking removal. While Lincoln raised a factual dispute regarding the merits
of Plaintiffs’ negligence claim against ASA, Lincoln did not attempt to show that the claim was
5
frivolous or illegitimate, as evidenced by Lincoln’s failure to substantively contest whether ASA
owed a duty to Plaintiffs. The removal of this case has unnecessarily delayed this litigation and
expended the resources of the parties, counsel, and the Court. The Court therefore awards
Plaintiffs their reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees associated with the removal and remand of the
action to be paid by the Lincoln as the removing defendant.
V.
Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (Doc. 20) is GRANTED
and the case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Pike County, Arkansas.
Plaintiffs are directed to submit to the Court a detailed and itemized statement of reasonable
costs and attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of the removal and remand proceedings. This itemized
statement must be filed on or before April 10, 2018. Lincoln will have until April 17, 2018 to file
any response. The parties are, however, strongly encouraged to confer with each other in an attempt
to mutually resolve the issue of costs and fees to be awarded, and may inform the Court if no ruling
on the amount is necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of March, 2018.
/s/P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?