Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Sightler et al

Filing 33

ORDER granting 25 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 28 Motion to Dismiss Defendant Lisa D. Sightler's Counterclaims; finding as moot 28 Motion for Interpleader; directing MetLife to pay $50,000.00, less reasonable attorney fees and costs to be approved by the court, directly to Sharon Sightler. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 04/14/2014.(bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,

C/A No. 3:13-cv-01661-JFA

Plaintiff,
vs.
Lisa D. Sightler and Sharon A. Sightler,

ORDER

Defendants.
_____________________________________
Lisa D. Sightler,
Counter Claimant,
vs.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
Counter Defendant.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) filed this interpleader action after
receiving competing claims to the life insurance policy (See ECF No. 1-1) of Andrew B. Sightler
(“Decedent”). Defendant Sharon Sightler is the former spouse of the Decedent. The Decedent
remarried Defendant Lisa Sightler. The Final Divorce Decree entered into between Decedent
and Sharon Sightler required Decedent to maintain a $50,000.00 life insurance policy with
Sharon Sightler designated as the beneficiary for the benefit of their children. ECF No. 25. The
Decedent subsequently designated his new wife, Lisa Sightler as the primary beneficiary of
Decedent’s life insurance policy with MetLife. Sharon Sightler was listed as a contingent
beneficiary. The record shows no alteration of the Final Divorce Decree between Decedent and
Sharon Sightler.

South Carolina case law clearly shows that Sharon Sightler is entitled to $50,000.00
under the policy at issue in this case. A valid divorce decree exists—requiring the Decedent to
maintain a $50,000.00 life insurance policy in Sharon Sightler’s favor—and there is no evidence
that the Decedent had any such life insurance policy other than the policy with MetLife at issue
in this litigation. Therefore, despite a beneficiary designation to the contrary, Sharon Sightler is
entitled to $50,000.00 under the policy. See Glover v. Inv. Life Co. of Am., 312 S.C. 126, 130,
439 S.E.2d 297, 299 (S.C. Ct. App. 1993).
Therefore, the court grants Defendant Sharon Sightler’s unopposed motion for summary
judgment, with prejudice. ECF No. 25. Because the court finds that Sharon Sightler is entitled
to $50,000.00 under the policy, the court grants MetLife’s unopposed motion to dismiss Lisa
Sightler’s counterclaims for breach of contract and bad faith, with prejudice. ECF No. 28.
Having resolved which party is entitled to the proceeds at issue, the court finds as moot
MetLife’s motion for interpleader. ECF No. 28. The court directs MetLife to pay $50,000.00,
less reasonable attorney fees and costs to be approved by the court,1 directly to Sharon Sightler,
once the period to file an appeal in this matter has expired. Such payment shall discharge
MetLife’s obligations under the policy.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 14, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

1

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

The court directs MetLife to submit a statement of attorney’s fees and costs to the court within seven days of this
order. MetLife shall not pay the policy proceeds to Sharon Sightler until this court has approved or denied
MetLife’s attorney fees and costs in this matter.