METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. HARRIS et al

Filing 50

OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 7/26/2017. (dmr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
:
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v
:
:
JOAN M. HARRIS, MARK J.
:
DANTONI, PATRICIA BRINSTER,
:
CAROLE PLATAS, JAMES
:
LLEWELLYN MATHEWS, AS
:
TRUSTEE OF THE SAMUEL J.
:
DANTONI AND MARILYN H.
:
DANTONI TRUST,
:
:
Defendants.
:
__________________________________
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,

Civil No. 16-0358 (NLH/KMW)

APPEARANCES:
McELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP
By: Randi F. Knepper, Esq.
1300 Mount Kemble Avenue
P.O. Box 2075
Morristown, New Jersey 07962
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JOAN M. HARRIS, pro se
P.O. Box 34
Millersville, Maryland 21108
Defendant

MARK J. DANTONI, pro se
P.O. Box 1071
Medford, New Jersey 08055
Defendant
PATRICIA BRINSTER, pro se
43 Radnor Blvd.
Marlton, New Jersey 08053
Defendant
1

OPINION

CAROLE PLATAS, pro se
121 W. Dominion Drive
Marlton, New Jersey 08053
Defendant
JAMES LLEWELLYN MATHEWS, Trustee
East Gate Center
309 Fellowship Road
Suite 200
Mount Laurel, New Jersey 08054
Defendant

HILLMAN, United States District Judge:
In this interpleader action, Plaintiff, Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (“MetLife”), contends that it faces multiple
competing claims to the proceeds of a $61,610.00 life insurance
policy of its insured, Samuel Dantoni, who passed away on October
24, 2014.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for

Interpleader Relief [Doc. No. 39].
Plaintiff has deposited the funds with the Registry of the
Court and now seeks entry of an Order: (1) compelling the Defendants
to “litigate, adjust and/or settle among each other their respective
and lawful entitlement” to the funds at issue, (2) permanently
restraining the Defendants from suing Plaintiff on claims arising
out of the policy at issue, and (3) dismissing Plaintiff from this
action with prejudice. [Proposed Order, Doc. No. 39-3]
The Court holds that Plaintiff has satisfied the elements of
the interpleader statute and is therefore entitled to protection

2

from any further related liability at this time.

Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s Motion for Interpleader Relief will be granted.

I.

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Samuel Dantoni, the Insured, was covered by Plaintiff under the

Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance policy (the “FEGLI Policy”).
[Complaint ¶ 9].

The policy, issued by Plaintiff to the United

States Office of Personnel management (“OPM”) pursuant to the
Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8701 et.
seq., provided life insurance benefits that became payable upon the
Decedent’s death. [Id.].

The Office of Federal Employees’ Group

Life Insurance (“OFEGLI”) is an administrative unit of MetLife
responsible for administering the claims process for the FEGLI
Policy, which begins following the death of an insured. [Id.].

Upon

the death of an insured, documents from the deceased’s personnel
file that are relevant to the adjudication of a claim are forwarded
to OFEGLI by OPM, which is responsible for recordkeeping for retired
employees under the FEGLI Policy.

OFEGLI then adjudicates the

claim. [Id. ¶ 10].
The most recent Beneficiary Designation form in Decedent’s
file, dated August 25, 2013 (the “2013 Beneficiary Designation”),
named Joan Harris (“Harris”) as the sole primary beneficiary to
receive 100% of the FEGLI Benefits. [Complaint Ex. A].
The prior Beneficiary Designation form on file for Decedent,

3

dated July 21, 2011 (the “2011 Beneficiary Designation”), named
Marilyn Dantoni, wife of the Decedent, as the sole primary
beneficiary to receive 100% of the FEGLI Benefits.

Marilyn Dantoni

died on February 24, 2013. [Complaint Exs. B and C].
On or about May 8, 2013, the Decedent completed an assignment
form assigning his interest in his FEGLI coverage to the Trustee or
Trustees or Successor Trustee or Trustees of the “Samuel J. Dantoni
and Marilyn H. Dantoni Trust, dated 1/19/2011” (the “Assignment”).
[Complaint Ex. D].

The Assignment was never processed by OPM,

pursuant to instructions provided by the Decedent to OPM in a
submission dated August 2013, whereby Decedent purportedly rescinded
the Assignment and instructed that the FEGLI Benefits should be paid
pursuant to the 2013 Beneficiary Designation, which named Harris the
sole primary beneficiary. [Complaint Ex. E].
Following Decedent’s death on October 24, 2014, James Llewellyn
Mathews, Esq. (“Mathews”), as Trustee of the Samuel J. Dantoni and
Marilyn H. Dantoni Trust (the “Trust”), submitted a Statement of
Claim seeking the FEGLI Benefits on behalf of the Trust. [Complaint
Ex. G].

On or about January 5, 2015, Harris submitted a Statement

of Claim seeking the FEGLI Benefits. [Complaint Ex. H].

By letter

dated March 13, 2015, OFEGLI told Mathews that the Trust’s claim was
denied because the Trust was not named as Decedent’s beneficiary on
the latest Beneficiary Designation completed by the Decedent on
August 25, 2013. [Complaint Ex. I].
4

On or about March 31, 2015,

Mathews wrote to OFEGLI and advised that the Decedent’s FEGLI
Benefits were assigned to the Trust by the Assignment. [Id. ¶ 21].
On or about May 19, 2015, OFEGLI received a letter from Mark
Dantoni (“Dantoni”) stating that Harris fraudulently completed the
2013 Beneficiary Designation without the Decedent’s knowledge.
[Complaint Ex. K].

On or about May 20, 2015, Dantoni submitted a

Statement of Claim seeking the FEGLI Benefits. [Complaint Ex. L].
On or about June 13, 2015, Dantoni wrote to OFEGLI alleging that the
Trust was not validly formed and that the Assignment was invalid,
because the Decedent was declared incompetent by a Maryland Court in
2012. [Complaint Ex. M].
On October 23, 2015, Plaintiff was told by its prior counsel
that Decedent’s children were unable to resolve their competing
claims to the FEGLI Benefits. [Id. ¶ 25].

On that same day,

Plaintiff was also told that Mathews filed a Complaint in a New
Jersey Superior Court dated October 15, 2015, seeking an order
permitting him to serve as the attorney-in-fact for Decedent’s four
children for the purpose of receiving the FEGLI Benefits. [Id.].
Thereafter, Plaintiff was told that the claimants resolved
their competing claims and agreed that the FEGLI Benefits would be
divided equally between the Decedent’s four children, Defendants
Harris, Dantoni, Patricia Brinster (“Brinster”), and Carole Platas
(“Platas”). [Id. ¶ 26].

Plaintiff proposed a general release

memorializing the agreement and releasing Plaintiff from any further
5

liability with respect to the FEGLI Policy or the FEGLI Benefits
payable as a result of Decedent’s death. [Complaint Ex. N].
Dantoni signed the General Release, but by e-mail dated
December 22, 2015, Dantoni told Plaintiff that he was rescinding his
agreement until further notice. [Id. ¶ 27].

By e-mail dated January

11, 2016, Dantoni told Plaintiff that “since there was no valid
agreement until all parties have signed, mailed and had the
Agreement received and reviewed by you for validity, my notification
to you is timely and as such t is my position that I have rescinded
my Release Agreement per my e-mail to you dated December 22, 2015.”
[Id. ¶ 28].

By e-mail dated January 12, 2016, Harris stated that

the General Release could not be rescinded. [Id. ¶ 29].
Plaintiff commenced this action by filing its complaint in
interpleader of January 19, 2016. [Doc. No. 1].

Defendants Harris,

Brinster, Platas, and Mathews, as Trustee of the Trust, answered the
complaint. [Doc. Nos. 10, 13, 15, & 17].
Plaintiff tried to serve Dantoni, who evaded Plaintiff’s
efforts.

By Order and Opinion dated September 20, 2016, the

Honorable Karen M. Williams, U.S.M.J., granted Plaintiff’s motion
seeking an order permitting substitute service on Dantoni.
Plaintiff served Dantoni by e-mail on December 20, 2016, after other
attempts to serve Dantoni were unsuccessful.
By Order dated October 20, 2016, Judge Williams granted
Plaintiff’s application to deposit the FEGLI Benefits with the
6

Court.

In accordance with the Order, Plaintiff sent to the Clerk of

the Court a check in the amount of $61,610.00, which was deposited
by the Clerk into the Registry on November 4, 2016. [Doc. No. 34 &
35].
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
There are two sources of interpleader relief in federal court:

statutory interpleader under 28 U.S.C. § 1335, and rule interpleader
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co.
v. Kissinger, 89 F.Supp.3d 622, 625 (D.N.J. 2015).

Plaintiff brings

this interpleader action under the interpleader statute.
Interpleader allows “‘a party who fears being exposed to the
vexation of defending multiple claims to a limited fund or property
that is under his control a procedure to settle the controversy and
satisfy his obligation in a single proceeding.’” Id. (quoting 7
Charles Allen Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice &
Procedure § 1704 (3d ed. 2001), at 540-41 (“Wright & Miller”)).
Thus, a “stakeholder who ‘admits it is liable to one of the
claimants, but fears the prospect of multiple liability[,]… to file
suit, deposit the property with the court, and withdraw from the
proceedings.’” Id. (quoting Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Hovis,
553 F.3d 258, 262 (3d Cir. 2009))(quoting Metro Life Ins. Co. v.
Price, 501 F.3d 271, 275 (3d Cir. 2007)).

Thus, as a result of an

interpleader action, “‘[t]he competing claimants are left to
litigate between themselves,’ while the stakeholder is discharged
7

from any further liability with respect to the subject of the
dispute.” Id.(quoting Metro. Life, 501 F.3d at 275).
An interpleader action usually proceeds in two stages. Id. at
626.

First, the Court must determine whether the interpleader

complaint was properly brought and whether to discharge the
stakeholder from further liability to the claimants. Id.
Second, the Court must determine the rights of the claimants to
the funds. Id.

With respect to the first stage, “[t]he key

prerequisite ... is that there be two or more claimants to the fund
who are ‘adverse’ to each other.” Id. (quoting New Jersey Sports
Prod., Inc. v. Don King Prod., Inc., 15 F.Supp.2d 534, 539 (D.N.J.
1998))(citing 7 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay
Kane, Federal Practice and Procedures § 1705 at 507-09 (1986 & 1996
supp.)).

“This requirement is not met where (a) one of the claims

clearly is devoid of substance; (b) one of the claimants is under
the control of the stakeholder or has dropped his claim, such that
the fear of multiple liability is baseless; or (c) the claims are
not asserted against the same fund, or the stakeholder may be liable
to both claimants.” Id. (quoting Allstate Settlement Corp. v. United
States, Civ. A. No. 07-5123, 2008 WL 2221897, at *3 (E.D.Pa. May 28,
2008))(citing New Jersey Sports, 15 F.Supp.2d at 539).
III.

DISCUSSION

The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for interpleader
relief.

Plaintiff contends that it is a “disinterested stakeholder”
8

and that it cannot determine to which Defendant or Defendants the
FEGLI Benefits are payable, though it agrees that the FEGLI Benefits
are in fact payable to one or some Defendants.

Plaintiff claims no

interest in the disputed funds and has deposited such funds in the
Court Registry.

Further, a dispute exists as to the proper

beneficiary or beneficiaries of the life insurance proceeds of the
insured.
Harris submitted a claim as the insured’s sole primary
beneficiary to receive 100% of the FEGLI Benefits pursuant to the
2013 Beneficiary Designation.

[Complaint Ex. H].

Dantoni, as

Executor of his mother’s (Marilyn Dantoni) estate, submitted a claim
seeking the FEGLI Benefits pursuant to the 2011 Beneficiary
Designation, which named Marilyn Dantoni as the sole primary
beneficiary to receive 100% of the FEGLI Benefits. 1

[Complaint Ex.

L].
According to Plaintiff, if the Court determines that the
General Release is binding and that Dantoni’s efforts to rescind the
General Release were unavailing, then the FEGLI Benefits would be
divided equally between Decedent’s four children.

Mathews, as Trustee, submitted a Statement of Claim seeking the
FEGLI Benefits on behalf of the Trust, which was denied. By letter
dated May 1, 2015, Mathews advised the Court that he does not oppose
Harris’ Motion for Release of Life Insurance Proceeds. [Doc. No.
43]. Therefore, the Court recognizes at least two competing claims
to the Decedent’s life insurance proceeds: those of Harris and
Dantoni.

1

9

If the Court determines that: (i) the General Release is
effectively rescinded, (ii) the 2013 Assignment is effective, and
(iii) the Trust is valid, then the FEGLI Benefits would be payable
to the Trust.
If the Court determines that: (i) the General Release is
effectively rescinded, (ii) the 2013 Assignment is ineffective, and
(iii) the 2013 Beneficiary Designation is valid, then the FEGLI
Benefits would be payable to Harris.
If the Court determines that: (i) the General Release is
validly rescinded, (ii) the 2013 Assignment is ineffective, and
(iii) the 2013 Beneficiary Designation form is invalid, then the
FEGLI Benefits would be payable in equal shares to Decedent’s
children pursuant to FEGLIA, because Marilyn Dantoni, who is the
sole beneficiary named on the 2011 Beneficiary Designation,
predeceased Decedent.
Thus, Plaintiff is exposed to duplicative liability due to
competing claims to the FEGLI Benefits, and there remains a dispute
as to who is entitled to the insurance proceeds.

The Court

therefore finds that this interpleader action is appropriate and,
indeed, Defendants do not object to Plaintiff’s request for
interpleader relief.

Accordingly, the Court will grant interpleader

relief and discharge Plaintiff from further participation in this
matter and from all liability in connection with the FEGLI Policy
and FEGLI Benefits at issue.
10

IV.

CONCLUSION
The Court concludes that Plaintiff has met the requirements of

the interpleader statute and may be relieved from liability at this
time.

Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for

interpleader relief.
An Order consistent with this Opinion will be entered.

Date: July 26, 2017
At Camden, New Jersey

___s/ Noel L. Hillman____
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

11