The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Bailey et al

Filing 31

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 25 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 25 Motion to Dismiss; denying 25 Motion for Attorney Fees. The Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to RELEASE to Prudential all funds it accepted into th e Court's Registry via its Order dated May 26, 2016 (doc. 8). Second, it GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Prudential's interpleader complaint. It GRANTS interpleader with respect to the approximately $332,000.00 of undistributed accid ental death benefits (doc. 25) and DENIES interpleader with respect to the $279,465.70 that Sherry Bailey alleges Prudential unlawfully converted (doc. 25). The Court thus ORDERS SherryBailey, Sharmon Howard, Kenneth Moon, Jr., James Bailey, and Randall Bailey to enter pleadings establishing their adversity to one another and stating their claims to the $332,000.00 of undistributed accidental death funds WITHIN 21 DAYS of thisOrder. Third, it DENIES Prudential's motion to discharg e itfrom the case and enjoin defendants from further legal action(id.). Fourth, it DENIES Prudential's motion for judgment onthe pleadings on all claims (id.). Fifth, it DENIES Prudential's motion for attorneys' fees (id.).Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 9/29/17. (wwp)

IN THE

UNITED

STATES

DISTRICT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT

OF

COURT

FOR THE

GEORGIA

STATEBORO DIVISION

*

THE

PRUDENTIAL

INSURANCE

*

COMPANY OF AMERICA,

*

Plaintiff,

*

CV 616-060

*

v,

*

SHERRY BAILEY,

*
*

Counterelaimant/Defendant

*

v,

SHARMON HOWARD, KENNETH MOON,
JR., JAMES BAILEY and RANDALL

*
*

BAILEY

*
*

Defendants.

*
*

ORDER

Presently before the Court is a motion for judgment on the

pleadings

filed

("Prudential").

by

Prudential

(Doc.

25.)

Insurance

Company

of

America

The Court DENIES IN PART and GRANTS

IN PART Prudential's motion.

I• Background

Prudential
Bailey
and the

provided

(the "Policy").
beneficiary of

Bailey died.
the Policy.

On June

a

life

insurance

policy

to

Russell

Sherry Bailey was Russell Bailey's wife
the

26,

Policy.

2015,

On June

24,

2015,

Sherry Bailey made a

Russell

claim on

The Policy contained $332,000.00 of term life coverage and
$332,000.00 of accidental death coverage.
Prudential
placed

settled

the

$343,420.50

"Account")

in

Notification"

term

into

Sherry
sent

a

life

to

portion

Prudential

Bailey's
Sherry

On January 21, 2016,

name.
Bailey

of

the

Alliance

The

Policy

Account

"Alliance

described

the

and
(the

Payment

Account

as

follows:

We have approved your group life insurance claim and have
settled your benefit through Prudential's Alliance Account
settlement option.
An interest bearing account has been
established in your name. . . . With the Alliance Account,
you can access your money immediately by writing a draft
for the amount you'd like to withdraw.
You can withdraw
the
entire
amount
immediately,
which will
close
the
account, or you can write drafts as needed.
Any balance
you maintain will earn continuous interest.

(Doc.

28-1,

at 12.)

On January

26,

2016,

a

grand

for the murder of Russell Bailey.

February 3,
total

of

Account.

Between January 29,

2 016,

and

2016, Sherry Bailey wrote three checks withdrawing a

$83,855.50

Prudential

jury indicted Sherry Bailey

notified

from

the

Sherry

Sherry Bailey

Account.

Bailey

claims

that

that

the

On

it

February

had

Account

8,

frozen

2016,

the

contained at

least $259,616.51 at the time Prudential imposed the freeze.

On May 25, 2016, Prudential filed an interpleader complaint
in

this

Court

seeking

to

enjoin Sharmon Howard,

Kenneth Moon,

Jr., James Bailey, and Randall Bailey as potential beneficiaries
under the Policy.

Simultaneously, it moved to "deposit into the

Registry of

of

this Court a total of death benefits in the amount

$591,564.90,

'Death

plus

Benefit')

applicable

that

is

due

the death of Russell Bailey,
."

(Doc.

distributions

3

to

at

1.)

Sherry

claim
and

interest,

payable

if

as

a

who was insured under
Prudential

Bailey

made

under

any
result

of

[the Policy]

no mention of

the

(the

Policy

or

any

the

$83,855.50 Sherry Bailey had already collected under the Policy.1
On May 26,

2016,

Sherry

31,

this Court granted Prudential's motion.

Bailey

2016.

In

filed

her

an

answer

counterclaim

and

she

counterclaim

alleges

illegally took $259,616.51 from her Account

that

on

August

Prudential

and placed it

the Court's Registry without her permission.

into

She also alleges

claims for fraud and breach of contract related to her agreement
with Prudential to place the distributed term life benefits into
the Account.

On December 21,

pleadings.
discharge

In
it

its

Howard,

Bailey;

(2)

Prudential moved for judgment on the

motion,

"from

Sharmon

2 016,

any

Kenneth

and

Prudential
all

Moon,

asks

liability"

Jr.,

James

the

Court

to

Sherry

Bailey,

to:

and

(1)

Bailey,
Randall

discharge it from liability for all claims relating

to the Policy;

(3)

enjoin any claims against it relating to the

1 Based on Sherry Bailey's allegations, the Court concludes that
$591,564.90 was the sum of Russell Bailey's $332,000.00 accidental
death coverage (plus applicable interest) and his $332,000.00 term

life

coverage

(plus

applicable

interest),

previously withdrawn by Sherry Bailey.

less

the

$83,855.50

Policy;

(4)

dismiss

with

relating to the Policy,
and

(5)

prejudice

all

claims

against

it

including Sherry Bailey's counterclaim;

award it reasonable legal fees and costs.

(Doc.

25 at

1-2.)
II.

At
clear

the
cut

Prudential

outset,
as

not

would

know

counterclaim,

Court

Prudential

party who wants

does

the

have

to

the

Court

it

however,

notes

would

pay its

who

Discussion

that

lead

the

believe

casts

to

it

is

to

is

an

obligations

pay.

serious

case

Court

that

contractual

needs

this

on

as

believe.

innocent

but

Sherry

doubt

not

simply

Bailey's

Prudential's

narrative.

In her counterclaim,

was

Sherry Bailey alleges that Prudential

not entirely forthcoming in its

motion

to

deposit

funds.

interpleader complaint and

Specifically,

she

claims

that

Prudential stole approximately $259,000.00 from the Account and
placed

it

Prudential
disputed

in

did

not

funds

significantly
raise

the

in

Court's

give
the

complicate

questions

about

Registry.

her

notice

Court's

also

prior

to

Registry.

Prudential's
the

She

validity

claims

depositing
These

interpleader
of

the

that

the

claims

action

Court's

and

Order

accepting the disputed funds.

After
case,

reviewing

the

motions

and

pleadings

the Court takes the following actions.

filed

First,

in

this

it RELEASES

back to Prudential all the funds it accepted on its Order dated

May

26,

2016.

Second,

Prudential's

it

DENIES

interpleader

IN

PART

request.

and

GRANTS

Third,

it

Prudential's request for a discharge and injunction.
DENIES

IN

judgment

PART

on

and

the

GRANTS

IN

pleadings.

request for attorneys'

PART

Fifth,

DENIES

PART

DENIES

Fourth,

Prudential's

it

IN

motion

it
for

Prudential's

fees.

A. Registry Funds

The

funds

Court

into

first

the

addresses

Court's

Prudential's

Registry.2

request

Federal

to

Rule

deposit

of

Civil

Procedure 67 details the procedure for depositing funds into the
Court's Registry.
sought is

It

states that

xx [i] f any part of

the relief

. . . the disposition of a sum of money ... a party

— on notice to every other party and by leave of the court — may

deposit with the court all or part of

R. Civ.

notice

P. 67(a)

to

(emphasis added).

the other parties of

the Court's Registry,
opportunity

to

its

the money

Prudential,

intent

to

respond

disputing

however,

deposit

Fed.

gave no

funds

in

and the other parties were not provided an
to

Prudential's

Prudential's request was prematurely granted.

2 In

. . . ."

Sherry

Bailey's

conversion

motion.

Thus,

Accordingly,

and

fraud

the

claims,

Prudential repeatedly asserts that the Court "ordered" it to pay the
disputed funds into the Court's Registry.
(Doc. 25, at 8, 10, 11;
Doc. 30, at 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9.)
The Court reminds Prudential, however,
that it issued this order only after Prudential asked the Court for

permission
to
deposit
the
disputed
funds
into
the
Registry.
Furthermore,
it granted Prudential's
request
because
Prudential
created the impression that it had not yet distributed the funds it
sought to deposit.
But that impression has since been challenged.
Thus, the Court rejects Prudential's attempts to hide behind its
Order.

Court

VACATES

its

previous

order

(doc.

8)

and

INSTRUCTS

the

Clerk to return to Prudential the funds it previously accepted.
The

Court,

however,

GRANTS

Prudential

leave

to

re-file

its

request providing proper notice to the opposing parties.
B. Interpleader Complaint

The

Court

interpleader.
"allows

a

next

addresses

Prudential's

request

for

Interpleader is a "remedial joinder device" which

stakeholder

who

is

uncertain

if

and

to

whom

he

is

liable for money or property held by him to join those who are

or

might

assert

Arthur R.

§ 1702,

is

double

against

p. 533

(3d ed. 2001)

by

"persons
or

Federal
with

multiple

Courts

must

Practice,

determine

the
§

Charles

Rule

of

that

Civil
may
be

Procedure

expose

joined

interpleader,

litigation

parties

22,

It

which

plaintiff

defendants

to
and

interpleader

1714

at

the

624.

remedy

in

In

first

the

Id.

two

requesting party has

at

624-25.

If

stages.
stage,

the

22

courts

right

"to

to the stake in
a

court

allows

it must then join the proposed defendants to the

and

instruct

interplead,

and determine

Wright,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 22(a)(1).

whether

proceeding."

a

as

compel the claimants to litigate their claims
one

A.

Federal Practice and Procedure

liability may

apply

22

(hereinafter Federal Practice).

claims

required to interplead."

Federal

him."

Miller & Mary K. Kane,

authorized

states,

claims

"the

them

to

interplead.

Id.

After

the

the Court may proceed to the second stage
respective

rights

of

the

claimants

to

the

stake."

Id. at 628.

At this point,

each claimant is adverse to

the others and must prove its right to the disputed stake.

The

Court

Prudential
Howard,

must

currently

prove

Kenneth Moon,

defendants
has

is

met

in this

its

minimum,

that
Jr.,

in
is

it

first

entitled

James Bailey,

litigation.

burden.

the

The

Prudential

stage,

to

join

where
Sharmon

and Randall Bailey as

Court

concludes

the

stakeholder

is

Id.

Prudential
of,

at

a

$332,000.00 of undistributed accidental death benefits.

Sherry Bailey is

currently the beneficiary,

but

her indictment

for Russell Bailey's murder casts legitimate doubt on her right
to

collect.

Moon,

If

Jr.,

potentially

she

James

be

cannot

collect,

Bailey,

the

and

proper

Sharmon

Randall

Howard,

Bailey

beneficiaries.

In

Kenneth

could

other

all

words,

Prudential has a finite amount of funds that is being claimed by

multiple

persons

Prudential

who

might

distributes

the

be

entitled

money

to

the

incorrectly,

lawsuits by any of the jilted claimants.

it

funds.
could

If
face

This is the definition

of multiple liability.
Because Prudential has demonstrated that

liability,

the

and

Sherry

joins

James

Bailey,

Court

GRANTS

Bailey,

and

The Court,

respect

the

to

undistributed

Sharmon

Randall

litigation.

Prudential's

Bailey

however,

$332,000.00

accidental

Howard,

death

as

it

faces multiple

interpleader

Kenneth
defendants

request

Moon,

Jr.,

in

this

only GRANTS interpleader with

(plus

applicable

coverage.

The

interest)
Court

of

DENIES

Prudential's
Prudential

interpleader

allegedly

with

removed

the

the

Account.

$279,465.70
the

Court

possessed

these

funds,

Prudential may then request interpleader with respect to

interpleader

and

Thus,

the

Bailey,

Sherry

Bailey,

and

ORDERS

Randall

Court

the

now enters

the

second

above

defendants

Howard,

Sharmon

Bailey

rightfully

If

determines

Accordingly,

Prudential

to

later

them.

that

from

respect

Kenneth

SHALL

enter

to

Jr.,

James

establishing

their adversity to one another and stating their claims
$332,000.00

of

undistributed

DAYS of this Order.

interpleader

is

accidental

death

See 22 Federal Practice,

ordered,

each

claimant

funds

to the

WITHIN

§ 1715 at 632

should

of

interplead.

Moon,

pleadings

stage

respond

21

(uIf

to

the

claims of the other claimants by denying their validity so that
issue is joined.").
C. Motion to Discharge and Enjoin

Prudential

also

requests

case and enjoin Defendants

any other court.
available,
the

Court

discharge

from further suit

in

it

from

this

the

Court or

"When the court decides that interpleader is

it may issue an order discharging the stakeholder, if

stakeholder

prosecuting
matter,

the

and

is

disinterested,

enjoining

the

any other proceeding related to the
directing

the

claimants

to

parties

from

same subject

interplead;

the

court

also may make any other order that is appropriate and convenient
for

the

Practice,

resolution

of

the

competing

§ 1714 at 627.

8

claims."

22

Federal

The

Court

Defendants.

is

not

declines

to

discharge

Prudential

or

enjoin

The Court will not discharge Prudential because it

a

disinterested

party.

Sherry

Bailey

has

made

a

plausible counterclaim for conversion and fraud that cannot yet
be dismissed,

result

in

additional

Defendants.
Prudential
it

and the

Court's

claims

determination of

against

her claim might

Prudential

by

the

other

Neither will the Court enjoin further suits against
because

Prudential

has

not

convinced

this

Court

that

is entitled to such relief.

D. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

The Court now addresses Prudential's motion for judgment on
the

pleadings.

"After

the

pleadings

are

closed

—

but

early

enough not to delay trial — a party may move for judgment on the

pleadings."

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P. 12(c).

"Judgment on the pleadings

is proper when no issues of material fact exist, and the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
substance

of

the

Cunningham

v.

F.3d 1237,

1255

judgment on
material

pleadings

Dist.

and any

Attorney's

(11th Cir. 2010).

judicially noticed

Office

for

Escambia

facts."

Cty.,

592

When considering a motion for

true

all

facts alleged in the non-moving party's pleading,

and

[ ] view

the pleadings,

law based on the

those

moving party."
(11th Cir.

facts

the court

in the

must

light most

favorable

Perez v. Wells Fargo N.A.,

2014) .

"accept as

to

the

non-

774 F.3d 1329,

1335

Prudential
It claims

challenges

that

(1)

fail;

and

by

Sherry Bailey.

her claim for conversion must

claim for punitive

must

every claim made

damages

(4)

must

Prudential

fail;

has

(3)

acted

her

fail;

(2) her

claim for

in good

fraud

faith at

all

times.
1.

Conversion

Prudential

makes

conversion

claim.

commit

tort

funds

the

for

its

two

First,

of

own

arguments

against

Prudential

argues

conversion

use."

because

(Doc.

25

it

at

Sherry

that

"did

8.)

Bailey's

it

Second,

not

convert

not

did

the

Prudential

argues that it "has no funds in its possession payable by reason
of the death of Russell Bailey,
breach of contract."

so there can be no conversion or

(Id.)

Prudential's arguments fail,
a mischaracterization of

asserts

that

it

however,

the situation.

gained nothing when

it

because they rely on
Prudential essentially

froze

the

Account

and

placed the Account's funds in the Court's Registry.

But, taking

Sherry Bailey's

agree

Prudential's

Prudential

claims as

true,

characterization.

distributed

her and placed

them

the Court
Sherry

Russell

Bailey's

in an account

cannot

Bailey

term

in her

life

name.

claims

with
that

benefits

Had

to

Sherry

Bailey spent these funds and then been convicted of murdering
Russell Bailey, Prudential might have faced liability from other

beneficiaries

benefits.

for

negligently

distributing

the

term

life

By clawing back the funds it ostensibly distributed
10

to

Sherry

Bailey

and

placing

them

in

the

Court's

Registry,

Prudential limited any double liability it might face from other
beneficiaries

and

Additionally,
assuming

arguendo

thereby

converted

the

funds

to

its

Prudential's possession argument fails.
that

the

Prudential

funds

it

does

placed

in

not

have

the

Court's

possession

of

Prudential

only lacks physical possession of

the

it sought to deposit.

Registry,

funds

to

Clerk

in this

return

the

Order

the

disputed

Court

funds

has

to

the other

already ordered

Prudential.

even if Prudential did have a leg to stand on,
more.

the funds

the Court would not

have allowed them in the Registry absent approval of

the

because

Had Prudential been transparent about how

it obtained the funds it sought to deposit,

Indeed,

Even

constructive

it failed to fully disclose the nature and history of

parties.

own use.

Thus,

it has a leg no

Prudential now has possession of Sherry Bailey's allegedly

converted

funds

The

therefore DENIES

Court

and

it

is

potentially

liable

for

Prudential's motion

the pleadings with regards to Sherry Bailey's

conversion.

for judgment on

counterclaim for

conversion.

2.

Fraud

When pleading fraud in federal court, plaintiffs must state
their claims with particularity.

Georgia law,

Fed. R. Civ.

"[t]he tort of fraud has five elements:

false representation by a defendant;

to

induce

P. 9(b).

the

plaintiff

to act
11

or

Under

. . . (1)

(2) scienter; (3) intention

refrain

from

acting;

(4)

justifiable reliance
plaintiff."
200,

204

by

Artzner v.

(Ga. Ct. App.

Prudential

also

claims

claims

representation
show

injury

Prudential

is

Sherry

be

assurances
her

any

damage

Inc.,

to

531 S.E.

2d

Sherry

Bailey

has

not

pled

the

is

no

evidence

Bailey

kind."

and

(Doc.

Prudential

she
25

has
at

made

wholly
9.)

a

false

failed

Once

to

again,

incorrect.

alleges

benefits

secure

in

to

the

that

her

Prudential

and

Account.

assured
She

told

her

also

her

that

alleges

it

was

justifiable,

and

that

she

was

her

money

that

these

induced her to place her money in the Account,

reliance

the

fraud and has not pled with specificity.

Sherry

Bailey

distributing
would

of

(5)

A & A Exterminators,

that

"there

to

and

2000).

essential elements of
It

the plaintiff;

suffered

that

damage

—

Prudential unilaterally removed all the money from her Account.

Thus,

Sherry Baily established the elements of fraud.

Sherry Bailey also pleaded with particularity.

She cited

descriptions provided by Prudential that she alleges were false

representations of the Account,
had

justifiable

reliance,

she stated why she believed she

and

she

attached

the

forms

that

allegedly induced her to allow Prudential to place her benefits
in the Account.
requirements

for

Sherry Bailey therefore satisfied the pleading
fraud.

Accordingly,

the

Court

DENIES

Prudential's motion for judgment on the pleadings with regard to
Sherry Bailey's fraud claim.
12

3, Punitive Damages

"Punitive damages may be awarded only in such tort actions

in which it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the
defendant's

wantonness,
raise

actions

showed

oppression,

the

willful

or that entire want of

presumption

consequences."

misconduct,

of

O.C.G.A.

§

Powertel,

Inc. ,

plaintiff

may

fraud.

551

also

O.C.G.A.

S.E.2d
recover

768

A

Ct.

for

see Tankersley v.

may

Taylor v.

App.

damages

to

plaintiff

conversion.

(Ga.

punitive

§ 51-12-5.1;

2d 435, 438 (Ga. Ct. App.

indifference

51-12-5.1(b).

765,

fraud,

care which would

conscious

recover punitive damages for the tort of

malice,

2001) .

the

A

tort

Baker,

of

651 S.E.

2007).

Prudential argues that that Sherry Bailey has not properly

pled her punitive damages

support the
Sherry

money

finding of punitive damages.

Bailey

from

alleges,
when it

in

claim and that her pleadings

has

her

alleged

account

the

that

in

alternative,

that

Bailey's

funds."

facts

misconduct"

motion

of

willfully

state

Prudential

law.

removed

She

committed

also

fraud

removed money from the Account after assuring her that

the money in the Account would be
"[her]

The Court disagrees.

Prudential

violation

do not

for

(Doc.

as

and

18,

true,

judgment

on

4.)

"[her]

she has plead facts

"fraud"

at

"secure";

sufficient

the

Thus,

to

pleadings.

13

accepting

alleging

survive

The

money";

and

Sherry

"willful

Prudential's

Court

therefore

DENIES

Prudential's

motion

for

judgment

on

the

pleadings

with

regard to Sherry Bailey's punitive damages claim.
4.

Good Faith

Prudential

argues

from any liability.

that

O.C.G.A.

§

33-24-41

discharges

it

Section 33-24-41 states:

Whenever the proceeds of . . . a life . . . insurance
policy . . . become payable . . . and the insurer makes
payment of the proceeds . . . the payments shall fully
discharge the insurer from all claims under the policy or
contract unless, before payment is made, the insurer has
received . . . written notice . . . [that another] person
claims to be entitled to the payment or some interest in
the policy or contract.

Prudential appears to argue that because it prohibited the

payment

of

funds

after

Sherry

Bailey's

indictment,

protected from liability by § 33-24-41.

But

flawed.

Prudiential

Even

assuming,

interpreted § 33-24-41,
judgment

for

motion

arguendo,

that

this

it

argument

is

is

correctly

Sherry Baily has pled facts which make a

on

the

pleadings

improper.

Prudential

insists on operating under the assumption that it had not paid
Sherry Bailey in full and was merely making payments to her each
time

it

honored

her

checks.

Sherry

Bailey,

however,

alleges

that Prudential distributed Russell Bailey's term life benefits
to her in full on January 21, 2016.

The parties,

asserting nearly polar opposite positions,

therefore,

are

and the Court cannot

grant Prudential's judgment on the pleadings.
Nevertheless,

the

true

problem with

Prudential's

is that Prudential has misinterpreted § 33-24-41.
14

argument

Indeed,

§ 33-

24-41 is wholly inapplicable to the present situation because it
only

addresses

claim

to

the

situations

rightful

another claimant.

where

an

insurance

beneficiary and

company

then receives

pays

notice

The statute declares that in such a case,

a
of

the

insurance company will be discharged "from all claims under the
policy,"
written

unless,
notice

prior

that

payment.

another

O.C.G.A.

protects

insurance

challenge the

to

§

paying

the

claimant

33-24-41

companies

claim,

was

received

a

right

added).

claimants

distribution of proceeds.

had

asserting

(emphasis
from

it

This,

It

who

to

thus

belatedly

however,

is not

the scenario presented in Sherry Bailey's counterclaim.

Sherry
and

Bailey's

breach

of

counterclaims

contract.

She

are

for

alleges

conversion,

Prudential

fraud,

distributed

money to her and then illegally took it out of the Account.

She

also

the

alleges

Account.
from

the

Prudential

Finally,
Account,

she

lied

to

alleges

Prudential

her

that

about

by

breached

the

terms

withdrawing

the

of

the

contract

it

money
formed

upon releasing the Policy's term life coverage benefits to her.
None of these claims assert that Prudential distributed payments

to another beneficiary after Sherry Bailey gave notice that she
was

a

claimant

on

the

Policy.

Thus,

Prudential

is

wrong

to

assert that § 33-24-41 blocks any liability for Sherry Bailey's

counterclaims,

and

the

Court

DENIES

Prudential's

motion

for

judgment on the pleadings with regards to Sherry Bailey's claims
for attorney's fees under the Georgia Bad Faith statute.
15

E.

Attorney's Fees

Finally,

Prudential requests attorneys'

interpleader
costs

and

claim.

counsel

"A federal
fees

action,

whether

statute,

whenever it

Practice,

§

however,

that

to

brought

1719

is

at

the

court

fees for filing the

has

discretion

stakeholder

under

Rule

22

in

or

an

to

interpleader

the

interpleader

fair and equitable to do so."

675.

The

attorneys'

Eleventh

fees

are

Circuit

not

award

has

Federal
declared,

warranted

"when

a

stakeholder's interpleader claim arises out of the normal course
of business."
21 F.3d 380,

an

In re Mandalay Shores Co-op.
383

insurance

(11th Cir.

company

which

resolve disputed claims to

attorneys'

fees

unwittingly

because

come

1994).

into

Housing Ass'n,

Inc.,

It has further declared that

"avails

itself

of

insurance proceeds"

"[u]nlike

possession

innocent

of

a

interpleader

to

does not deserve

stakeholders

disputed

who

asset,

an

insurance company can plan for interpleader as a regular cost of
business

.

.

.

."

Prudential
claim

arises

out

therefore DENIES

Id.

is
of

an

insurance

its

normal

company
course

of

and

its

business.

Prudential's claim for attorneys'

interpleader
The

Court

fees related

to its interpleader claim.
III.

To conclude,
it ORDERS

the

Conclusion

the Court makes the following rulings.

Clerk of

Court to RELEASE to Prudential all

it accepted into the Court's Registry via
16

First,
funds

its Order dated May

26,

2016

(doc.

8).

Second,

Prudential's

interpleader

with respect

to

the

it GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART

complaint.

It

GRANTS

approximately $332,000.00

accidental death benefits

interpleader

of

undistributed

(doc. 25) and DENIES interpleader with

respect to the $279,465.70 that Sherry Bailey alleges Prudential
unlawfully

converted

Bailey,

Sharmon

Randall

Bailey to

to

one

Order.

The

Kenneth

Court

Moon,

enter pleadings

accidental

Third,

from the

the

Howard,

25).

case

it

death

DENIES

pleadings

it

on

DENIES

all

funds

James

to

the

WITHIN

Prudential's

Sherry

Bailey,

and

$332,000.00

21

motion

from

Prudential's

claims

ORDERS

establishing their adversity

and enjoin defendants

Fourth,

thus

Jr.,

another and stating their claims

undistributed

(id.) .

(doc.

DAYS

to

further

motion

(id.).

for

Fifth,

of

this

discharge

legal

it

action

judgment

it

of

on

DENIES

Prudential's motion for attorneys' fees (id.).

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta,
September,

Georgia,

this ^x^^day of

2017.

)GE

STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

17