Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Sinkler
Filing
55
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 6/6/2011. (c/m by chambers 6/6/2011)(ns, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
Plaintiff
v.
EVELYN R. SINKLER
Defendant
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Civil No. PJM 10-336
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This Memorandum Opinion addresses Defendant Evelyn Sinkler’s Amended Motion for
Summary Judgment [Documents No. 28].
On February 16, 2010, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (“MassMutual”)
filed the present action, seeking a declaratory judgment that the disability insurance policy it
issued to Sinkler lapsed for non-payment of premiums, or alternatively, that Sinkler must submit
to an independent medical examination in connection with her claim for disability benefits. On
March 4, 2010 Sinkler filed her own complaint in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County,
Maryland against MassMutual, alleging breach of the terms and conditions of the disability
insurance policy in violation of the Maryland Unfair Claims Settlement Act. MassMutual
removed the case to this Court on the basis of diversity of citizenship, pursuant to 28 U.S. § 1332
and it was docketed as PJM 10-1221.
On August 6, 2010, the Court consolidated the two cases and ordered that the case
proceed under the caption Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Sinkler, Civil Case
No. PJM 10-336. The Court also directed Sinkler to file any counterclaims against MassMutual
within 30 days.
1
Sinkler has failed to file formal counterclaims against MassMutual. Nonetheless, before
the Court is her Amended Motion for Summary Judgment. The gist of Sinkler’s claim is that she
is entitled to benefits under MassMutual’s disability insurance policy and that MassMutual
engaged in fraudulent conduct and other unfair claim settlement practices in evaluating her
disability claim.
Having considered Sinkler’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court finds that she is
not entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the record as it stands. The parties are
currently involved in discovery. Although unlikely, it is not impossible that Sinkler could
prevail on summary judgment at the end of discovery when a more complete record will be
before the Court. Accordingly, at this time Sinkler’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Documents
No. 28] will be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and may be renewed at a later date.
A separate Order will ISSUE.
June 6, 2011
______________ /s/________________
PETER J. MESSITTE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?