Companion Life Insurance Company v. Haislett et al

Filing 47

ORDER denying 21 MOTION to Dismiss Case Without Prejudice, denying 44 MOTION for Administrative Resolution, granting 14 MOTION to Deposit Funds, directing the plaintiff to deposit with the court $15,360.00, and notifying the action will continue among the remaining defendants. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 09/28/2010. (bshr, )

C o m p a n i o n Life Insurance Company v. Haislett et al

D o c . 47

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA C O L U M B IA DIVISION C o m p a n io n Life Insurance Company, ) ) P la in tif f , ) ) vs. ) ) Maria C. Haislett, Stephanie L. Munoz, ) Natalie L. Haislett and J. L. H., a minor, ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________ ) C / A No.: 3:10-1586-JFA O R D E R PERMITTING PLAINTIFF T O DEPOSIT FUNDS, IN T E R P L E A D E R , FOR DISMISSAL O F PLAINTIFF WITH PREJUDICE, A N D DENYING DEFENDANT M A R IA HAISLETT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RESOLUTION

T h is matter comes before the Court pursuant to an interpleader action brought by P lain tiff Companion Life Insurance Company. On July 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to d e p o sit life insurance proceeds into the Court Registry pursuant to Rule 22 and 67 of the F e d e ra l Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 67.01 DSC and to be dismissed from th e case. On July 30, 2010, Defendant Maria Haislett filed a document captioned "Motion R e sp o n s e with Assertion for Dismissal without Prejudice" in which she requested, among o th e r things, that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. Thereafter, on September 20, 2010, D e f e n d a n t Maria Haislett filed a document captioned "Motion for Administrative Relief" in w h ic h she again requested that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. A hearing on Plaintiff's motion to deposit funds was held before this Court on S e p te m b e r 21, 2010. Plaintiff was represented at the hearing by Allen Bullard, Esquire. D e sp ite receiving notice of the hearing by mail, Defendants did not appear at the hearing. B a se d upon the arguments of counsel and the record before it, this Court finds that the policy

Dockets.Justia.com

p ro c e e d s should be deposited with the Court, that the Plaintiff should be dismissed with p re ju d ic e , and that the matter should continue as and among the remaining parties for d e te rm in a tio n of the proper distribution of the policy proceeds. In addition, based on the f in d in g s of fact and conclusions of law which follow, Defendant Maria Haislett's "Motion R e sp o n s e with Assertion for Dismissal without Prejudice" and "Motion for Administrative R e lie f " are denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. P la in tif f is an insurance company duly organized and existing pursuant to the laws of

th e State of South Carolina. 2. D e f e n d a n t Maria C. Haislett is a resident and citizen of the State of Maryland and is

the ex-wife of the decedent, Carl Vaughn Haislett ("Decedent"). 3. D e f en d a n t Stephanie L. Munoz is a resident and citizen of the State of Maryland and

is the daughter of the Decedent. 4. D e f en d a n t Natalie L. Haislett is a resident and citizen of the State of Maryland and

is the daughter of the Decedent. 5. c h ild . 6. D e c ed e n t's former employer, C&H Mechanical Corporation ("Employer") established D e f e n d a n t J. L. H. is a resident and citizen of the State of Maryland and is Decedent's

a n d maintained group life insurance coverage with Plaintiff for the benefit of its employees a s part of an E.R.I.S.A. (29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.) governed employee welfare benefit plan.

2

D e c ed e n t was a participant in this plan. 7. 8. T h e Plan is administered in Richland County, South Carolina. D e c ed e n t was a covered insured under a basic group life insurance policy (Policy No.

9 0 9 -2 5 -4 3 5 6 1 -0 1 5 ) issued to Employer ("the Policy"). 9. T h e Policy's proceeds are in the amount of Fifteen Thousand and no/100 ($15,000.00)

D o l la r s . 10. Decedent died on January 17, 2010, and the Policy proceeds are now, therefore,

s u b je c t to distribution. 11. 12. T h e Policy's proceeds are Fifteen Thousand and no/100 ($15,000.00) Dollars. D e c ed e n t's mother, Gertrude R. Haislett, is Decedent's designated beneficiary under

th e Policy. 13. 14. G e rtru d e R. Haislett died on or about January 2, 2004, predeceasing Decedent. If there is no surviving beneficiary, the Policy provides that its proceeds are to be

d is trib u te d to the Decedent's surviving spouse, or, if there is no surviving spouse, to the D e c e d e n t 's surviving children, in equal shares. 15. O n or about February 4, 2010, Defendant Maria C. Haislett made a claim for the

P o l ic y proceeds. 16. O n or about March 28, 2010, Defendant Stephanie L. Munoz made a claim for the

P o lic y proceeds. 17. O n or about June 11, 2010, Defendant Natalie L. Haislett made a claim for the Policy

3

proceeds. 18. A lth o u g h Defendant J. L. H. has not yet made a claim for the Policy proceeds, she

re m a in s a potential beneficiary under the Policy. 19. 1994. 20. T h e divorce decree contained a provision incorporating the parties' 1991 separation D e f en d a n t Maria C. Haislett and Decedent were divorced on or about September 19,

a g re e m e n t. 21. O n e of the provisions of the separation agreement provided that Decedent would

d e sig n a te his minor children beneficiaries of his employer-provided life insurance. 22. D e c e d e n t enrolled in the Policy on April 18, 1994. At the time the parties entered into

th e separation agreement, April 26, 1991, Decedent was not insured under the Policy. 23. D e c ed e n t's initial designation of his mother as the beneficiary under the Policy was

n e v e r altered. 24. A t the time the parties entered into the settlement agreement, Defendant J. L. H. had

n o t yet been born. 25. 26. A dispute exists as to the proper beneficiaries under the Policy. Plaintiff has received documentation that identifies multiple Defendants as potential

c o m p e t in g beneficiaries. 27. P la in tif f is not able to determine which of the Defendants is entitled to the Policy's

p ro c e e d s and cannot pay any part of said sum without danger of being compelled to pay said

4

s u m to each alleged beneficiary. 28. D e f e n d a n ts' claims are such that Plaintiff may be exposed to double or multiple

l i a b i l i t y. C O N C L U S I O N S OF LAW 29. U n d e r Rule 4(k) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court has personal

ju ris d ic tio n over all parties to this action. 30. T h is action arises out of and is governed by ERISA and therefore presents a federal

q u e stio n . Accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U .S .C . § 1331. 31. B e c au s e the Plan is administered in Richland County, South Carolina, venue is proper

u n d er 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2). 32. P la in tif f has properly filed and has sufficiently stated its grounds for an interpleader

a c tio n under Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in that there is substantial d o u b t as to which Defendant or Defendants is/are entitled to the Policy proceeds, and P la in tif f is subject to exposure to double or multiple liability. 33. 2010. 34. P u rsu a n t to Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is proper for this Court P l a in tif f will deposit the proceeds with the Clerk of Court on or before October 6,

to dismiss Plaintiff from this lawsuit with prejudice, and to discharge Plaintiff from all liab ility arising out of or relating to the Policy and this lawsuit.

5

N O W THEREFORE, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED & DECREED that: 1. O n or before October 6, 2010, Plaintiff will deposit with the Court Fifteen Thousand

T h re e Hundred Sixty and no/100 ($15,360.00) Dollars, which represents the entirety of the P o lic y proceeds, plus interest from the date of Decedent's death. 2. P u rsu a n t to Rule 22 and 67 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil

R u le 67.01(B) DSC, the Clerk shall deposit these funds into an interest-bearing account. 3. T h e sum so invested in the interest-bearing account shall remain on deposit until

f u rth e r order of this Court. 4. R u le 22 and 67 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 67.01(C)

D S C , the Clerk shall deduct a fee for the handling of the funds, as authorized by the Judicial C o n f e re n c e of the United States and as set by the Director of the Administrative Office w ith o u t further order of the Court. 5. O n c e Plaintiff deposits the Policy proceeds, Plaintiff is fully and finally discharged

o f all further liability by reason of such payment, and is dismissed from this action with p r e ju d ic e . 6. E a c h Defendant and their agents, attorneys, representatives, assigns, and all other

p e rs o n s claiming at any time, are perpetually enjoined and restricted from initiating or p u rs u in g any proceeding in this or any other court of law or equity against Plaintiff on a c c o u n t of the Policy. 7. D e f en d a n t Maria Haislett's "Motion Response with Assertion for Dismissal without

6

P r e ju d ic e " and "Motion for Administrative Relief" are denied. 8. T h i s action will continue among the remaining defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S ep tem b er 28, 2010 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina

J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States District Judge

7