Banner Life Insurance Company v. Kaur et al

Filing 48

MOTION by Plaintiff Banner Life Insurance Company for default judgment as to Vamsi Venisetty, MOTION by Plaintiff Banner Life Insurance Company for judgment Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Receipt of Deposited Funds, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Declaration of Ridhi D. Madia, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Military Verification for V. Venisetty, # 4 Text of Proposed Order Ex. 4 - Proposed Order for Final Judgment and Default Judgment)(Madia, Ridhi)

EXHIBIT 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
BANNER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
PURAB KAUR, MAYHER MATHARU,
VAMSI VENISETTY, and DANIEL H.
LEAHY, HARJINDER SINGH, and
TRILOCHAN S. BHAMRAH,
SUCCESSOR CO-TRUSTEES OF THE
AMARPAL S. MATHARU TRUST DATED
JULY 9, 2020,
Defendants.
DANIEL H. LEAHY, HARJINDER SINGH,
and TRILOCHAN S. BHAMRAH,
SUCCESSOR CO-TRUSTEES OF THE
AMARPAL S. MATHARU TRUST DATED
JULY 9, 2020,
Counter-Plaintiff,
v.
PURAB KAUR, MAYHER MATHARU, and
VAMSI VENISETTY,
Counter-Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:20-cv-6467
Judge Charles P. Kocoras
Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes

FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER IN INTERPLEADER AND ORDER OF DEFAULT
JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT VAMSI VENISETTY
This matter coming to be heard on Plaintiff Banner Life Insurance Company’s (“Banner
Life”) Motion for Final Judgment in Interpleader and for Default Judgement Against Defendant
Vamsi Venisetty due notice having been given and this Court being fully advised in the premises,
this Court finds that:

1.

Banner Life filed its Complaint in Interpleader on October 30, 2020, under 28

U.S.C. §§ 1335, 1397, 2361 and Rule 22 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to resolve potential
competing claims for payment of the death benefit under a life insurance policy, Policy No.
180364998 (the “Policy”), insuring the life of Amarpal Singh Matharu (the “Insured”). This Court
has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this cause and personal jurisdiction over the parties.
(Doc. #1).
2.

Banner Life issued life insurance the Policy on the life of the Insured with a Policy

Date of May 18, 2020 and a death benefit in the amount of $750,000.00 (seven hundred and fifty
thousand and 0/100 dollars). (Doc. #1, ¶ 10).
3.

Defendant Purab Kaur was listed as the Policy’s primary beneficiary. The

contingent beneficiaries are listed as “to be divided equally among all living children.” (Doc. #1,
¶ 13).
4.

Defendants Purab Kaur, Mayher Matharu, and Vamsi Venisetty became the

Policy’s primary beneficiaries on or around July 10, 2020 pursuant to a Beneficiary Change Form
purporting to bear the Insured’s signature, dated July 6, 2020. Defendant Mayher Matharu was
designated to receive a 50 percent share of the death benefit, Defendant Purab Kaur was designated
to receive a 40 percent share of the death benefit, and Defendant Vamsi Venisetty was designated
to receive a 10 percent share of the death benefit. (Doc. #1, ¶¶ 18, 19).
5.

Defendants Purab Kaur, Vamsi Venisetty, and Successor Co-Trustees of the

Amarpal S. Matharu Trust Dated 7/9/20 became the Policy’s primary beneficiaries on or around
July 15, 2020 pursuant to a Beneficiary Change Form purporting to bear the Insured’s signature,
also dated July 6, 2020. The “Amarpal Singh Matharu Trust Dated 7/9/20” was to receive a 50
percent share of the death benefit, Defendant Purab Kaur was to receive a 40 percent share of the

death benefit, and Defendant Vamsi Venisetty was to receive a 10 percent share of the death
benefit. (Doc. #1, ¶¶ 20, 21).
6.

On July 17, 2020, The Circuit Court of Cook County entered an order in In Re: The

Marriage of Purab Kaur v. Amarpal Singh Matharu, case no. 15 D 8593, providing that Defendant
Purab Kaur and Defendant Mayher Matharu would each be named a 50 percent beneficiary of the
Amarpal Singh Matharu’s life insurance policies, including his Policy with Banner Life. (“Order
I.”) This Order was entered without prejudice. This Order was not served on Banner Life and was
not received by Banner Life until after the Insured’s death. (Doc. #1, ¶ 22; Doc. #1, Ex. F).
7.

On September 4, 2020, the Circuit Court of Cook County entered a second order in

In Re: The Marriage of Purab Kaur v. Amarpal Singh Matharu. The Order states in Section 1A
that Defendant Purab Kaur shall be designated as the 75 percent beneficiary of Banner Life’s
Policy. It also stated that Banner Life “shall implement this beneficiary designation upon receipt
of a certified copy of this order.” (“Order II”). (Doc. No 1, ¶ 23; Doc. #1, Ex. G).
8.

The Insured died on September 9, 2020. (Doc. No 1, ¶ 24).

9.

On September 10, 2020, Banner Life received a non-certified copy of Order II

through Defendant Purab Kaur’s counsel, Attorney McSurley, requesting that Banner Life comply
with Order II. At that time, Banner Life had not been informed that the Insured had died, neither
did the communication from Purab’s attorney state that the Insured had died. (Doc. #1, ¶ 25).
10.

On September 11, 2020, Banner Life sent a letter to the Insured, unaware that he

had died, informing him of a beneficiary change on his Policy in response to the receipt of Order
II. The letter confirmed that “Purab Kaur” had a 75 percent beneficiary allocation that was
irrevocable until notified by a court order. The letter also confirmed the “Amarpal Singh Matharu

Trust” had a 15 percent beneficiary allocation, and “Vamsi Venisetty” had a 10 percent beneficiary
allocation. (Doc. #1, ¶ 26).
11.

On September 24, 2020, Banner Life sent a letter to the Insured advising that it had

changed the Policy’s primary beneficiaries to “Purab Kaur,” “Amarpal S. Matharu Trust DTD
7/9/20” and “Vamsi Venisetty.” (Doc. #1, ¶ 28).
12.

On September 25, 2020, Defendant Purab Kaur sent a letter to Banner Life via

email, notifying Banner Life of the Insured’s death on September 9, 2020, attaching Order I and
Order II, asking Banner Life to not pay of the Policy’s purported beneficiaries, and claiming a 100
percent beneficiary share under the Policy. (Doc. #1, ¶ 29).
13.

After the Insured’s death, Banner Life received competing claims for the Policy’s

proceeds from Defendants Purab Kaur, Mayer Matharu and Daniel H. Leahy, Harjinder Singh, and
Trilochan S. Bhamrah, Successor Co-Trustees of the Amarpal S. Matharu.
14.

Banner Life cannot determine factually or legally who is entitled to the Policy’s

proceeds.
15.

By reason of the actual or potential claims of the interpleading defendants, Banner

Life is or may be exposed to multiple liabilities. The defendants, as potential beneficiaries of the
Policy, may each have a claim to and interest in the Policy’s proceeds, and said claims are adverse
to and conflict with each other. (Doc. #1, ¶ 34).
16.

On November 13, 2020, the Court entered an order granting Banner Life’s Motion

for Leave to Deposit Funds into the Registry of the Court. (Doc. #10). Banner Life deposited its
admitted contractual liability in the amount of $ 750,454.77 on December 7, 2020.
17.

Banner Life filed its Complaint in Interpleader in good faith and has done all that

is required by law to perfect its interpleader action.

18.

Banner Life is entitled to be discharged form this litigation in accordance with the

terms as provided in this order. 28 U.S.C. § 1335; FED. R. CIV. P. 22.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECLARED that:
A.

Judgment is granted in favor of Banner Life Insurance Company on its Complaint
for Interpleader and against Defendants Purab Kaur and Mayher Matharu, and
Daniel H. Leahy, Harjinder Singh, and Trilochan S. Bhamrah, Successor CoTrustees of the Amarpal S. Matharu Trust Dated July 9, 2020;

B.

Default Judgment is granted in favor of Banner Life Insurance Company on its
Complaint for Interpleader and against Defendant Vamsi Venisetty;

C.

Banner Life Insurance Company has acted in good faith in interpleading the
proceeds of Policy No. 180364998, and depositing its admitted liability with the
Clerk of the Court;

D.

Banner Life Insurance Company, its successors, assigns, representatives, agents,
attorneys, and all of its affiliated companies, including officers, directors, and
employees, are hereby released and discharged from any and all liability under the
life insurance policy, Policy No. 180364998, insuring the life of Amarpal Singh
Matharu, or arising on account of the death of Amarpal Singh Matharu, or the
claims of any or all Defendants, Purab Kaur, Mayher Matharu, Vamsi Venisetty,
and Daniel H. Leahy, Harjinder Singh, and Trilochan S. Bhamrah, Successor CoTrustees of the Amarpal S. Matharu Trust Dated July 9, 2020, and all Defendants
shall litigate their claims to the admitted liability without involving Banner Life
Insurance Company;

E.

All Defendants, or any person or entity claiming through them, are preliminary,
permanently, and perpetually restrained and enjoined from filing or prosecuting any
claim in any federal, state, or administrative court or other forum with respect to
the proceeds of the life insurance policy, Policy No. 180364998, insuring the life
of Amarpal Singh Matharu, or arising on account of the death of Amarpal Singh
Matharu, or the claims of an or all Defendants, Purab Kaur, Mayher Matharu,
Vamsi Venisetty, and Daniel H. Leahy, Harjinder Singh, and Trilochan S.
Bhamrah, Successor Co-Trustees of the Amarpal S. Matharu Trust Dated July 9,
2020, except in the interpleader proceedings in the above-captioned matter, and this
injunction is issued without bond or surety;

F.

Banner Life Insurance Company is awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
in the amount of $7,179.00, to be paid from the $750,454.77 that Banner Life
Insurance Company deposited with the Clerk of this Court, and in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 2042, the Clerk of this Court is directed to issue a check to Banner Life
Insurance Company in the amount of $7,179.00, with a mailing address of “c/o
Chittenden, Murday, & Novotny LLC, 303 West Madison Street, Suite 2400,
Chicago, Illinois 60606;”

G.

Banner Life Insurance Company is dismissed and excused from further attendance
in this cause with an express finding of finality under Rule 54(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure that there is no just cause for delaying either enforcement
or appeal or both.

DATED: ________________
U.S. District Court Judge