Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company v. Jones-Atchison et al

Filing 46

ORDER striking 32 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 33 Motion to Intervene; granting 35 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 6/5/2018. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
HARTFORD LIFE AND
ACCIDENT COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEISHA JONES-ATCHISON,
DAVID ATCHISON, SR., and
FANNIE ATCHISON,
Defendants.

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

Case No. CIV-17-654-D

ORDER
Anitra Haag, Amber Smith, and Kristie Hall, as parents and next friends of
minor children L.M.H., I.E.S., and J.H., respectively (collectively “Applicants”),
move to intervene as defendants in this action pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure [Doc. Nos. 33, 35]. Defendants Keisha Jones-Atchison,
David Atchison, Sr. and Fannie Atchison have not responded to the motion, but
Plaintiff Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company (“Hartford”) has filed an
objection to the extent Applicants seek to assert a counterclaim against Hartford
[Doc. No. 43]. The matter is fully briefed and at issue.
BACKGROUND
Hartford is the carrier of a group policy (the “Policy”) with basic life insurance
benefits (and other coverages not relevant to this action) for its policy holder—

Siemens Corporation (“Siemens”). David Lamare Atchison II (“Mr. Atchinson”)
was employed by Siemens and was a participant in the Policy. Mr. Atchison died
after being shot by an unknown assailant on January 8, 2017. His wife, Keisha JonesAtchison, submitted a claim for benefits payable on Mr. Atchison’s death. However,
Mr. Atchison’s father, David Lamare Atchison, Sr., submitted a Preference
Beneficiary Affidavit (“PBA”). In the PBA, Mr. Atchison, Sr. claimed entitlement
to some or all of the Policy’s benefits, by way of the Policy’s succession provision.
To date, there have been no arrests in connection with the death of Mr.
Atchison, although court filings in this case state that Ms. Jones-Atchison has not
been ruled out as a suspect and the circumstances surrounding Mr. Atchison death
remain unclear. Citing the existence of competing claims to the Policy proceeds,
Hartford filed this interpleader action and the Court granted Hartford permission to
deposit the proceeds into the Clerk’s registry and be discharged from these
proceedings [Doc. No. 22]. On January 30, 2018, Ms. Jones-Atchison filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 32] seeking an award of the Policy benefits.
Subsequent to Hartford’s discharge, Applicants filed the present motion,
claiming that Mr. Atchison was the biological father of their children. They contend
intervention is proper because the minor children each claim an interest relating to
the proceeds at issue, and disposition of this action without their participation may
impair or impede their ability to protect their interests. Applicants seek time to
2

conduct discovery and submit a response thereafter to Ms. Jones-Atchison’s Motion
for Summary Judgment.
As indicated above, Hartford objects to Applicants’ motion on the grounds
that they intend to assert a counterclaim against Hartford for proceeds that are not at
issue in this litigation, specifically, supplemental life insurance benefits that were
previously distributed under the terms of a plan governed by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”).
DISCUSSION
Rule 24 states non-parties may intervene in a pending action as of right if: (1)
the application is timely; (2) the applicants claim an interest relating to the property
or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicants’ interest may, as
a practical matter, be impaired or impeded; and (4) the applicants’ interest is not
adequately represented by existing parties. Western Energy Alliance v. Zinke, 877
F.3d 1157, 1164 (10th Cir. 2017). The Tenth Circuit has historically taken a liberal
approach to intervention and favors the granting of motions to intervene. See id.
(citing Coal. of Ariz./N.M. Ctys. for Stable Econ. Growth v. Dep’t of Interior, 100
F.3d 837, 841 (10th Cir. 1996)).

3

A review of the foregoing factors supports granting Applicants’ motion. First,
under the present circumstances,1 the Court finds Applicants’ motion is timely. As
set forth in their respective motions, Applicants had no notice of this action until a
few days before filing their motion. Applicants were not notified by any party to this
action, but discovered it by conducting a search regarding a related lawsuit before
the Court. Moreover, the Court finds that the existing parties would not be prejudiced
if Applicants were permitted to intervene. At the time of Applicant’s motion, the
only pending matter was Ms. Jones-Atchison’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
however such motion was made without the benefit of any discovery and rests on
the simple assertion that Oklahoma’s “slayer statute” does not apply. See Mot. for
Summ. J. at 2 [Doc. No. 32].
However, as stated more fully below, Applicants would be prejudiced by a
denial of their motion since they have an interest in the subject matter of this action
and a denial of intervention would leave them with the alternative of filing a separate
action to resolve an issue that is already before the Court. Absent discovery or
substantive legal progress, the Court cannot say the present litigation is in any way

1

In the Tenth Circuit, timeliness is determined “in light of all of the circumstances.”
Western Energy, 877 F.3d at 1164 (quoting Okla. ex rel. Edmondson v. Tyson Foods,
Inc., 619 F.3d 1223, 1232 (10th Cir. 2010)). To this end, three non-exhaustive factors
are “particularly important: (1) the length of time since the movants knew of their
interests in the case; (2) prejudice to the existing parties; and (3) prejudice to the
movants.” See id.
4

at an “advanced stage” as to result in prejudice and prohibit intervention. Compare
Geiger v. Foley Hoag LLP Retirement Plan, 521 F.3d 60, 64 (1st Cir. 2008).
Regarding the second and third factors, Applicants have an asserted interest
in the insurance proceeds that are the subject in this action. The disposition of this
action would, as a practical matter, impair Applicants’ ability to protect that interest.
If the Court does not permit Applicants to intervene in this action, as noted, their
only realistic alternative would be to file a separate declaratory action to resolve an
issue that is already before the Court—the identity of the proper claimants/recipients
regarding the proceeds at issue. Resolution of this question by Applicants’
intervention would best promote judicial economy, as well as preserve the resources
of the parties involved.
Lastly, it is self-evident that no current party adequately protects Applicants’
interests. Permitting intervention, as opposed to requiring a separate lawsuit, would
promote the public policies of conserving judicial resources and preventing
inconsistent findings and judgments.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Applicants’ Motions to Intervene [Doc. Nos. 33, 35] are
GRANTED as set forth herein. Applicants shall file their answer or responsive

5

pleading within ten (10) days of this Order.2 Pursuant to the findings in this Order,
the Court finds Ms. Jones-Atchison’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc.
No. 32] should be STRICKEN without prejudice to refiling.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of June 2018.

2

In making the foregoing ruling, the Court expresses no opinion on whether
Applicants’ putative counterclaim against Hartford is valid, as such issue is better
addressed via a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment, if necessary.
6