The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Bynum et al

Filing 22

ORDER granting 21 Motion to Stay and denying 8 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - The court is mindful, however, that this litigation has been ongoing for some time with little participation from the parties. To promote the expeditious reso lution of this case, defendant Tony, who has requested a stay while he appeals his conviction, is ORDERED to provide status report with the court no later than May 16,2012, notifying the court ofthe progress ofhis appeal, including his case number an d the name and contact information of counsel, if applicable. Should defendant Tony fail to provide said status report, the court will appropriately enter show cause order as to why judgment should not be entered sua sponte against him. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 02/21/2012. (Baker, C.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

WESTERN DIVISION

NO.5:11-CV-62-FL

THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

v.
EDWARD S. BYNUM and
TONY E. BYNUM,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)

)

)

)

ORDER

This matter comes now before the court upon review of the docket where pro se defendant
Edward Bynum's ("defendant Edward") motion for judgment on the pleadings (DE # 8) remains
pending, to which pro se co-defendant Tony Bynum ("defendant Tony") has not responded. On
November 8, 2011, defendant Tony filed document styled as an answer to complaint. For the
following reasons, the court denies without prejudice defendant Edward's motion for judgment on
the pleadings and construes defendant Tony's answer as a motion to stay the instant proceedings
pending final judgment of conviction.
Plaintiff filed complaint in interpleader on February 11, 2011. Plaintiff issued a policy of
group life insurance bearing policy number 6-39900 to which defendants were designated co-equal
primary beneficiaries of any death benefit payable as a consequence of the insured's death. On
October 2,2008, the insured died and her death was ruled a homicide. (Compl.

~

9.) At the time

of death, the insured was covered for benefits in the amount of$25,000.00. Plaintiff paid one-half

of this amount to defendant Edward. Upon plaintiffs information and belief, defendant Tony was
criminally indicted for first degree murder in connection with the insured's death. Plaintiff sought
court order directing defendants to interplead their rights to the death benefit.
On May 13,2011, defendant Edward filed answer to complaint, noting that the instant action
was filed prior to the completion ofthe sentencing of defendant Tony for the murder ofthe insured.
Defendant Edward's answer further indicated that defendant Tony was sentenced for the crime in
April 2011, in Johnston County. Defendant Edward argued that based on defendant Tony's
admission of guilt, defendant Tony was disqualified from receiving the death benefits. As such,
defendant Edward asked the court to award him the remaining portion of the death benefit.
On September 21, 2011, the court entered order granting plaintiff's motion for default
judgment against defendant Tony and ordering that $17,500.00 ofthe death benefit be deposited with
the Clerk of Court. The order granting plaintiffs motion for default also noted that defendants were
compelled to litigate their respective claims and failure to do so would result in the court settling
their claims and determining to whom the funds should be paid.
On November 2, 2011, the court entered order liberally construing defendant Edward's
answer as a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and set aside trial and associated deadlines to allow for the disposition of the
potentially dispositive motion filed. On November 8, 2011, defendant Tony filed document styled
an answer to the complaint. He represented that he is in the process of"getting his case ... back into
court" in order to prove his innocence, after which time he would make a claim for his portion ofthe
death benefits. Defendant Edward did not respond.
North Carolina law prohibits the beneficiary of an insurance policy who kills the insured
2

from receiving benefits under the insurance policy. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 31A-3, 31A-11; Quick
v. United Benefit Life Ins. Co., 287 N.C. 47,56-57,213 S.E.2d 563, 569 (1975); see also State Farm
Life Ins. Co. v. Allison, 128 N.C. App. 74, 76,493 S.E.2d 329,330 (1997). Whether federal law,
see Title I ofthe Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001

et ai, governs this action or state law, the result is the same. A slayer does not profit from his
misdeeds. See Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Riner, 351 F.Supp.2d 492,497 (W.D.Va. 2005);
see also Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Armstrong, 117 U.S. 591, 600 (1886) ("It would be a reproach to the
jurisprudence of the country if one could recover insurance money payable on the death of the party
whose life he had feloniously taken.").
The record reflects that defendant Tony has been convicted at the state trial court level ofthe
murder of the insured, however he indicates in his filing that he plans to appeal his conviction
through the state court system. Construing apro se pleading liberally, as the court is required to do,
the court construes defendant Tony's filing, lodged on the docket at entry 21, as an answer and a
motion to stay the proceedings pending final judgment ofconviction. A similar factual scenario was
presented to the court in Riner, and the court granted defendant's motion to stay while he appealed
his conviction. See Riner, 351 F.Supp.2d at 495. The Riner court did note, however, that after the
Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the defendant's convictions, further stay of the proceedings was
inappropriate and the state slayer statute could be applied. The court finds a similar course is
warranted here.
Accordingly, defendant Edward's motion for judgment on the pleadings (DE # 8) is DENIED
without prejudice to renewal. Defendant Tony's filing at docket entry 21 is construed as an answer
as well as a motion to stay the proceedings pending final judgment of conviction, which motion is

3

GRANTED. As such, the proceedings are STAYED.
The court is mindful, however, that this litigation has been ongoing for some time with little
participation from the parties. To promote the expeditious resolution of this case, defendant Tony,
who has requested a stay while he appeals his conviction, is ORDERED to provide status report with
the court no later than May 16,2012, notifying the court ofthe progress ofhis appeal, including his
case number and the name and contact information ofcounsel, ifapplicable. Should defendant Tony
fail to provide said status report, the court will appropriately enter show cause order as to why
judgment should not be entered sua sponte against him.
~b
SO ORDERED this the..2! day of February, 2012.

4