Guardian Life Insurance Company of America v. Katz et al
Filing
30
ORDER AND REASONS granting 19 Motion for Summary Judgment. Entry of judgment is STAYED for 15 days from the entry of this order to allow Guardian to file an appropriate motion for attorneys fees. Should Guardian fail to do so, the Court will enter judgment in favor of Saundra Foreman Katz for the full amount of the interpleader funds. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo. (ecm)
.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GUARDIAN LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 16-7266
SAUNDRA KATZ, ET AL
SECTION: “H”(1)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Interpleader Defendant Saundra Foreman Katz (Doc. 19). For the following
reasons, this Motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
This is an interpleader action filed by Plaintiff Guardian Life Insurance
Company. At issue is a whole life survivorship insurance policy purchased
from Plaintiff by Jerome H. Foreman and Catherine C. Foreman, the nowdeceased parents of the Interpleader Defendants (“the Policy”). The Policy
names Interpleader Defendant Saundra Foreman Katz as both owner and
beneficiary. Her sisters, Interpleader Defendants Cassaundra Foreman and
1
Jacqueline Foreman Pottinger, challenge her entitlement to the proceeds of the
Policy. Catherine Foreman died on May 2, 2014. After her death, Jerome
Foreman filed a petition for a declaratory judgment in state court seeking
revocation of the donation of the Policy to Katz (the “Revocation Suit”). He
passed away on February 21, 2016, and his other daughter, Interpleader
Defendant Jacqueline Foreman Pottinger, has been substituted as the plaintiff
in that suit in her capacity as Executrix of his estate. In short, Interpleader
Defendants Cassaundra Foreman and Jacqueline Foreman Pottinger assert
that, should the revocation action succeed, they would be entitled to the
proceeds of the policy, while Saundra Foreman Katz maintains that she is the
rightful beneficiary of the policy per its plain terms. After being placed on
notice of these competing claims, Plaintiff instituted this action and deposited
the proceeds of the policy into the registry of the Court.
Interpleader
Defendant Saundra Foreman Katz filed the instant Motion for Summary
Judgment, arguing that she is entitled to the interpleader funds based on the
plain language of the policy. Interpleader Defendants Jacqueline Foreman
Pottinger and Cassaundra Foreman oppose this Motion, while Interpleader
Plaintiff Guardian Insurance Company has filed a limited objection to the
Motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if
any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”1 A genuine issue
1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (2012).
2
of fact exists only “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party.”2
In determining whether the movant is entitled to summary judgment,
the Court views facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant and draws
all reasonable inferences in his favor.3 “If the moving party meets the initial
burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the burden
shifts to the non-moving party to produce evidence or designate specific facts
showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial.”4 Summary judgment is
appropriate if the non-movant “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish
the existence of an element essential to that party’s case.”5 “In response to a
properly supported motion for summary judgment, the non-movant must
identify specific evidence in the record and articulate the manner in which that
evidence supports that party’s claim, and such evidence must be sufficient to
sustain a finding in favor of the non-movant on all issues as to which the nonmovant would bear the burden of proof at trial.”6 “We do not . . . in the absence
of any proof, assume that the nonmoving party could or would prove the
necessary facts.”7
Additionally, “[t]he mere argued existence of a factual
dispute will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion.”8
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
Coleman v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 1997).
4 Engstrom v. First Nat’l Bank of Eagle Lake, 47 F.3d 1459, 1462 (5th Cir. 1995).
5 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986).
6 John v. Deep E. Tex. Reg. Narcotics Trafficking Task Force, 379 F.3d 293, 301 (5th
Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted).
7 Badon v. R J R Nabisco, Inc., 224 F.3d 382, 394 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Little v.
Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)).
8 Boudreaux v. Banctec, Inc., 366 F. Supp. 2d 425, 430 (E.D. La. 2005).
2
3
3
LAW AND ANALYSIS
In this Motion, Interpleader Defendant Saundra Foreman Katz asks the
Court to enter judgment in her favor declaring that she is entitled to collect
the proceeds of the Policy.
Interpleader Defendants Jacqueline Foreman
Pottinger and Cassaundra Foreman oppose this Motion, arguing (1) that the
copy of the policy submitted with Katz’s Motion is not competent summary
judgment evidence, and (2) that the Revocation Suit pending in state court
relative to the donation of the insurance policy creates a genuine issue of
material fact precluding summary judgment in this matter.
Interpleader
Plaintiff Guardian Insurance Company has filed a limited objection to the
Motion, arguing that any distribution of the funds should be delayed until such
time as it has been awarded attorneys’ fees and dismissed from this action.
The Court will address these arguments in turn.
I. The Policy as Summary Judgment Evidence
Defendants Pottinger and Foreman challenge the admissibility of the
copy of the policy attached to Katz’s Motion. The copy of the policy offered by
Katz is accompanied by an affidavit executed by Katz’s counsel, Steven
Mauterer attesting to the veracity of the attached Policy.
Pottinger and
Foreman aver that Mr. Mauterer is not competent to execute such an affidavit,
as he has personal knowledge of neither the application for the policy nor its
issuance. Though Pottinger and Foreman are correct that an affidavit “must
be made on personal knowledge,”9 any concern as to the authenticity of the
Policy is obviated by the fact that Guardian has attached an identical version
of the Policy to its limited opposition to Katz’s Motion. Accordingly, the Court
9
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
4
has before it an admissible copy of the Policy and may continue to the merits
of Katz’s Motion.
II. Katz’s Entitlement to the Proceeds of the Policy
In her Motion, Katz argues that, she is entitled to the proceeds of the
Policy per its plain language. Pottinger and Foreman aver that the existence
of the Revocation Suit creates a genuine issue of material fact precluding
summary judgment. “Under Louisiana law, an insurance policy is a contract
between the parties and should be interpreted according to the general rules
of interpretation of contracts prescribed in the Louisiana Civil Code.” 10
Further, “[w]hen the words of a contract are clear and explicit and lead to no
absurd consequences, no further interpretation may be made in search of the
parties’ intent.”11 The parties do not dispute that the Policy indicates that
Saundra Foreman Katz is the beneficiary and therefore entitled to the proceeds
under the plain, unambiguous language of thereof.
Rather, Pottinger and
Foreman’s argued factual dispute is based on their hope that they will
ultimately prevail in the Revocation Suit. At this time, however, there is no
evidence before this Court indicating that anyone other than Katz is entitled
to the policy proceeds. According, she is entitled to the interpleader funds
based on the plain language of the policy.
III. Guardian’s Opposition
Guardian has filed a limited opposition to Katz’s motion, asking that the
Court delay dispersing the interpleader funds pending a determination on its
entitlement to attorneys’ fees. “A district court has the authority to award
10
Smith v. Am. Family Life Assur. Co. of Columbus, 584 F.3d 212, 215–16 (5th Cir.
11
Id.
2009).
5
reasonable attorney's fees in interpleader actions. The award of attorney’s fees
is in the discretion of the district court, and fees are available when the
interpleader is a disinterested stakeholder, and is not in substantial
controversy with one of the claimants.”12 Though Guardian asserts that it is
entitled to dismissal and an award of attorneys’ fees, it has filed no motion to
that effect. Accordingly, the Court will delay disbursement of the interpleader
funds pending resolution of this issue. Guardian shall file an appropriate
motion for attorneys’ fees within 15 days of the entry of this order. Should no
such motion be filed, the Court will order the immediate disbursement of the
interpleader funds to Saundra Foreman Katz.
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, Claimant Saundra Foreman Katz’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is GRANTED, inasmuch as the Court finds that she is
entitled to the proceeds of the policy. Entry of judgment is STAYED for 15
days from the entry of this order to allow Guardian to file an appropriate
motion for attorneys’ fees. Should Guardian fail to do so, the Court will enter
judgment in favor of Saundra Foreman Katz for the full amount of the
interpleader funds.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 7th day of November, 2016.
____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
Rhoades v. Casey, 196 F.3d 592, 603 (5th Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted).
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?