MONY Life Insurance Company v. Snyder et al
Filing
45
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re: 40 MOTION to Amend/Correct Answer, Counterclaim and Crossclaim filed by Pamela Eckert. (See memo for complete details.) Signed by Honorable William W. Caldwell on 12/20/16. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MONY LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff
vs.
CAROL SNYDER, f/k/a CAROL
ECKERT, and PAMELA ECKERT,
Defendants
:
:
:
: CIVIL NO. 1:CV-15-2109
:
: (Judge Caldwell)
:
:
:
MEMORANDUM
I.
Introduction and Procedural History
Plaintiff, MONY Life Insurance Company (“MONY”), filed this interpleader
action to resolve which of the defendants is entitled to the proceeds of an insurance
policy MONY issued on the life of Steve Eckert (the “Insured”). Defendants are Carol
Snyder (“Snyder”), the Insured’s ex-wife, and Pamela Eckert (“Eckert”), his widow.
Snyder was the named beneficiary at the time of the Insured’s death.
We have before us Eckert’s motion to file a second amended counterclaim
against MONY and a second amended crossclaim against Snyder. MONY opposes the
motion; Snyder does not. We thus deal here only with whether Eckert can amend her
counterclaim. Eckert does not seek to add any causes of action, just clarifying averments
based on discovery that has occurred in the case so far.
As pertinent here, Eckert pled two counts in her original counterclaim
against MONY: (1) a claim that MONY breached a fiduciary duty it owed the Insured; and
(2) a claim that MONY breached a contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing it owed
the Insured. After considering MONY’s motion to dismiss, we decided that those claims
could proceed. MONY Life Ins. Co. v. Snyder, 2016 WL 1058923 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 17,
2016). In her amended counterclaim, Eckert added a claim for bad faith under 42 Pa.
Cons. Stat. Ann. § 8371. MONY moved to dismiss that claim, and we granted the
motion. MONY Life Ins. Co. v. Snyder, 2016 WL 3418493 (M.D. Pa. June 22, 2016).
MONY filed an answer to the amended counterclaim on August 10, 2016.
II. Discussion
Eckert has already filed an amended counterclaim, and MONY has filed an
answer to that counterclaim. In these circumstances, “a party may amend its pleading
only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2); Rule 15(a)(1). “Leave to amend must generally be granted unless equitable
considerations render it otherwise unjust.” Arthur v. Maersk, Inc., 434 F.3d 196, 204 (3d
Cir. 2006). “[P]rejudice to the non-moving party is the touchstone for denial of an
amendment.” Lorenz v. CSX Corp., 1 F.3d 1406, 1414 (3d Cir. 1993)(quoted case and
internal quotation marks omitted); see also Luciani v. City of Philadelphia, 643 F. App’x
109, 111 (3d Cir. 2016)(nonprecedential)(quoting Lorenz). The court may also deny
leave to amend “based on bad faith or dilatory motives, truly undue or unexplained delay,
repeated failures to cure the deficiency by amendments previously allowed, or futility of
amendment.” Lorenz, 1 F.3d at 1414; Luciani, 643 F. App’x at 111.
-2-
In moving to file a second amended counterclaim, Eckert points out that she
is not attempting to add new claims, merely to clarify allegations that would support her
claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the contractual duty of good faith and
fair dealing. The additional averments are set forth in paragraphs 50 through 65 of the
proposed second amended counterclaim. They are based on the depositions of the two
insurance agents who met with the Insured shortly before the Insured allegedly
transferred ownership of the policy to Snyder, his ex-wife.
MONY argues the motion should be denied because the two counterclaims
are futile as they allege meritless claims. In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114
F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir. 1997)(“‘Futility’” means that the complaint, as amended, would
fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.”). MONY presents two
arguments. First, the claims are meritless because they both seek only the policy
proceeds, but under Prudential Ins. Co. v. Hovis, 553 F.3d 258 (3d Cir. 2009),
counterclaims that seek only interpleaded funds must be dismissed. Second, the
damages on these claims are speculative, again because Eckert only seeks the policy
proceeds, but has failed to allege that the Insured would have changed the beneficiary to
his estate.
Additionally, MONY argues that the breach-of-contract claim fails because
Eckert, with access to the policy through discovery, does not allege what provisions of
the policy have been breached, nor has she attached the policy to her proposed
pleading. Further, MONY argues that the motion should be denied because the
-3-
allegations in the proposed second amended counterclaim contradict her deposition
testimony. Finally, since the counterclaim lacks merit, MONY requests that it be allowed
to pay the proceeds into court and be discharged from the action while Snyder and
Eckert litigate who is entitled to the proceeds.
In her reply brief, Eckert argues that we should not consider these
arguments as her motion only requests that she be allowed to amend her pleading to
provide clarifying amendments and not to raise new causes of action. She also notes
that her causes of action survived MONY’s first motion to dismiss and that MONY is
acting as if the parties were litigating a motion for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56, rather than a motion to amend a pleading.
We agree with Eckert that we should not consider MONY’s arguments in
the instant motion. Since she seeks only to add clarifying allegations, we will permit her
to do so. See Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel, 720 F. Supp. 2d 587, 616 (D.N.J.
2010)(amendments that seek only to clarify causes of action will be permitted). After
Eckert files her second amended counterclaim, MONY is free to renew its arguments by
any other available procedural route.
We will issue an appropriate order.
/s/William W. Caldwell
William W. Caldwell
United States District Judge
Date: December 20, 2016
-4-
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?