Pruco Life Insurance Company v. Sievers et al

Filing 38

ORDER granting 35 Parties Pruco Life Insurance Company, Mark Sievers, and J.S.'s Joint Motion for Order for Distribution and Other Relief. Pruco Life Insurance Company shall pay its counsel, d'Arcambal Ousley & Cuyler Burk LLP attorn eys' fees in the amount of $15,000.00, representing a portion of the Death Benefit. Pruco Life Insurance Company shall issue a check to John Thomas Cardillo, Esq. payable to Cardillo, Keith, & Bonaquit Trust Account to be held in trust in a n interesting-bearing account pending final resolution of the legal issues forming the basis of this action in the amount of $2,485,402.66, plus applicable interest. Upon resolution of the legal issues forming the basis of this action, Defendant s Mark Sievers and J.S., through her legal guardian, shall apply to a Florida State Court for entry of an order and final determination regarding the distribution of the Death Benefit, or enter into a written agreement regarding such distribution. Up on dismissal of this action, Pruco Life Insurance Company shall be, and hereby is, discharged from any and all liability to the Defendants and permanently enjoining the Defendants from making any further actual or implied claims, demands and causes o f 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 the Defendants, jointly and severally, ever had, presently have, or claim or assert to have, or hereinafter have, may have, or claim to assert to have, against Pruco with respect to the Policy and/or the Death Benefit. The parties shall notify this Court, in writing, regarding the status of the checks on or before October 23, 2017. Upon notice to the Court that the Death Benefit has been distributed in accordance with this Order, this action shall be deemed dismissed with prejudice, in its entirety, with no further fees and costs to any party. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 9/21/2017. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:16-cv-906-FtM-38CM

MARK SIEVERS and J.S.,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Order for
Distribution and Other Relief (Doc. 35) filed on June 30, 2017.2 This matter is ripe for
review.
BACKGROUND
This interpleader action involves an Individual Life Insurance Policy3 (“Policy”)
issued by Pruco Life Insurance Company (“Pruco”) to the late Teresa Sievers (“Insured”)
and the uncertainty surrounding the benefits recipient. In 2005, Pruco issued the Policy
to the Insured for $2,500,000.00. (Doc. 1-1). Mark Sievers was the designated sole

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or
websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are
cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By
allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve,
or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites.
Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites.
The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink.
Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does
not affect the opinion of the Court.
2 J.S.’s grandmother, Mary Ann Groves, has been appointed her legal guardian. See
(Doc. 30).
3 Individual Life Insurance Policy Number L1045752.

beneficiary, and J.S., a minor, was the contingent beneficiary. (Doc. 1-1). In 2015, the
Insured died, and her death was ruled a homicide. (Doc. 35 at 2). Thereafter, Mark
Sievers was charged with first degree murder of the Insured. (Doc. 3 at 2).
That charge is the basis for the uncertainty in this action. Under Florida law, a
named beneficiary is not entitled to any benefit under a life insurance policy if he or she
unlawfully and intentionally kills the principal. See Fla. Stat. 732.802(3). In fact, it is
treated as if the killer predeceased the principal. See id. Accordingly, if Mark Sievers is
found to have forfeited his right, then J.S., the contingent beneficiary, is entitled to the
Policy benefits. Because of this potential divergence, Pruco brought this interpleader
action against Mark Sievers and J.S.
Now, the parties jointly seek dismissal of this action, a discharge of liability for
Pruco, deposit of Policy benefits with a neutral third party, fees for Pruco’s attorneys, and
a permanent injunction against Defendants “from making any further actual or implied
claims . . . against Pruco with respect to the Policy and/or Death Benefit.” (Doc. 35 at 34). For the reasons stated below, the Joint Motion is granted.
DISCUSSION
“Interpleader is the means by which an innocent stakeholder, who typically claims
no interest in an asset and does not know the asset's rightful owner, avoids multiple
liability by asking the court to determine the asset's rightful owner.” In re Mandalay
Shores Co-op. Hous. Ass’n, Inc., 21 F.3d 380, 383 (11th Cir. 1994). A party may bring
an interpleader action “under [28 U.S.C. § 1335] or Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil

2

Procedure.” Fulton v. Kaiser Steel Corp., 397 F.2d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 1968).4 Here,
Pruco, without explicitly stating as such, brought its interpleader action under Rule 22
because § 1335 was not available.5 See (Doc. 1). The distinction is important because
the “statutes governing § 1335 interpleader actions explicitly permit permanent injunction;
the rules governing Rule 22 actions do not.” Life Ins. Co. of N.A. v. Champion, 7:16-CV143, 2016 WL 9185288, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 13, 2016) (citations omitted). Nonetheless,
permanent injunctions are available under a Rule 22 interpleader action. See Genworth
Life Ins. Co. v. Reyes, 12-20959-CIV, 2013 WL 12140965, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 4,
2013), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Genworth Ins. Co. v. Reyes, 1220959-CIV, 2013 WL 12141335 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 29, 2013). They are simply governed by
28 U.S.C. § 2283 and Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id.
Because a permanent injunction is available, and all parties stipulate to its
language, this Court will grant the parties’ request for a permanent injunction. The Court
will also grant the additional relief sought. Therefore, this Court will dismiss this action
once the parties inform it that the Policy benefits have been distributed in accordance with
this Order.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:

4

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981), the Eleventh Circuit
adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior
to October 1, 1981.
5 While Pruco never explicitly alleges that it is proceeding under Rule 22, § 1335 requires
a diversity of claimants that does not exist here, as both Mark Sievers and J.S. are citizens
of Florida. (Doc. 1).

3

Parties Pruco Life Insurance Company, Mark Sievers, and J.S.’s Joint Motion for
Order for Distribution and Other Relief (Doc. 35) is GRANTED.
(1) Pruco Life Insurance Company shall pay its counsel, d’Arcambal Ousley &
Cuyler Burk LLP attorneys’ fees in the amount of $15,000.00, representing a
portion of the Death Benefit.
(2) Pruco Life Insurance Company shall issue a check to John Thomas Cardillo,
Esq. payable to Cardillo, Keith, & Bonaquit Trust Account to be held in trust in
an interesting-bearing account pending final resolution of the legal issues
forming the basis of this action in the amount of $2,485,402.66, plus applicable
interest.
(3) Upon resolution of the legal issues forming the basis of this action, Defendants
Mark Sievers and J.S., through her legal guardian, shall apply to a Florida State
Court for entry of an order and final determination regarding the distribution of
the Death Benefit, or enter into a written agreement regarding such distribution.
(4) Upon dismissal of this action, Pruco Life Insurance Company shall be, and
hereby is, discharged from any and all liability to the Defendants and
permanently enjoining the Defendants from making 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 the Defendants, jointly and severally,
ever had, presently have, or claim or assert to have, or hereinafter have, may

4

have, or claim to assert to have, against Pruco with respect to the Policy and/or
the Death Benefit.
(5) The parties shall notify this Court, in writing, regarding the status of the checks
on or before October 23, 2017. Upon notice to the Court that the Death Benefit
has been distributed in accordance with this Order, this action shall be deemed
dismissed with prejudice, in its entirety, with no further fees and costs to any
party.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 21st day of September, 2017.

Copies: All Parties of Record

5