Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Wimbush et al
Filing
22
OPINION AND ORDER granting 19 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 7/9/15. (dr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION FILE
NO. 1:14-CV-2518-TWT
CARL WIMBUSH, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This is an interpleader action. It is before the Court on the Defendants Carl and
Calvin Wimbush’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 19]. For the reasons stated
below, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
I. Background
Silas Wimbush, Jr., purchased a life insurance plan issued by MetLife through
his employer, Delta Air Lines.1 The plan gave the participant the right to name his
beneficiaries.2 On January 4, 2012, Silas Wimbush signed and submitted a beneficiary
designation form to MetLife, revoking any previous designations and designating
1
Wimbush Defendants’ Statement of Material Facts ¶ 1.
2
Id. ¶ 2.
T:\ORDERS\14\Metropolitan Life Insurance\14cv2518\msjtwt.wpd
Calvin and Carl Wimbush (“the Wimbush Defendants”) as primary beneficiaries
under the policy.3 Silas Wimbush died on November 14, 2013.4
Evelyn Dixson-Wimbush is Silas Wimbush’s ex-wife.5 MetLife initially
declined to award benefits to Ms. Dixson-Wimbush because she was not a listed
beneficiary on the policy.6 Ms. Dixson-Wimbush appealed that denial of benefits via
letter, questioning the validity of the 2012 beneficiary designation form.7 Although
MetLife believed the 2012 beneficiary designation form to be valid, it decided not to
attempt to determine the validity of Ms. Dixson-Wimbush’s claims.8 This interpleader
action resulted. The Wimbush Defendants now move for summary judgment.
II. Legal Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate only when the pleadings, depositions, and
affidavits submitted by the parties show no genuine issue of material fact exists and
that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.9 The court should view the
3
Id. ¶ 3.
4
Id. ¶ 4.
5
Id. ¶¶ 8-10.
6
Id. ¶ 5.
7
Id. ¶ 6.
8
Id. ¶ 7.
9
FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a).
T:\ORDERS\14\Metropolitan Life Insurance\14cv2518\msjtwt.wpd
-2-
evidence and any inferences that may be drawn in the light most favorable to the
nonmovant.10 The party seeking summary judgment must first identify grounds to
show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.11 The burden then shifts to the
nonmovant, who must go beyond the pleadings and present affirmative evidence to
show that a genuine issue of material fact does exist.12 “A mere ‘scintilla’ of evidence
supporting the opposing party’s position will not suffice; there must be a sufficient
showing that the jury could reasonably find for that party.”13
III. Discussion
Carl and Calvin Wimbush move for summary judgment, arguing that they are
entitled to the entirety of the life insurance proceeds at issue. In support of this
argument, the Wimbushes have produced a MetLife Beneficiary Designation Form
from January 4, 2012, designating them as the beneficiaries of Silas Wimbush’s life
insurance policy.14 Evelyn Dixson-Wimbush has offered no evidence to rebut the
validity of the beneficiary designation form. The evidence in the record, therefore, is
10
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59 (1970).
11
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986).
12
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986).
13
Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1990).
14
Wimbush Defendants’ Statement of Material Facts, Ex. C.
T:\ORDERS\14\Metropolitan Life Insurance\14cv2518\msjtwt.wpd
-3-
that Carl and Calvin Wimbush are the designated beneficiaries of the life insurance
policy and are entitled to the proceeds. Their motion for summary judgment should
be granted.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Wimbush Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. 19] is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED, this 9 day of July, 2015.
/s/Thomas W. Thrash
THOMAS W. THRASH, JR.
United States District Judge
T:\ORDERS\14\Metropolitan Life Insurance\14cv2518\msjtwt.wpd
-4-
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?