Woolf v. Liberty Mutual Group
Filing
53
MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 37 Motion to Deposit Funds; granting 38 Motion for Interpleader. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:1. Liberty Lifes Motion for Interpleader [Docket No. 38] is GRANTED; 2. Liberty Life As surance Company of Bostons Motion for Leave to Deposit Funds [DocketNo. 37] is GRANTED;3. Liberty Life shall deposit the sum of $180,000.00, plus any applicable accrued interest,into the Court registry;4. The funds shall be deposited by the Clerk of Court into an interest-bearing account;5. Ms. Wigginton and Ms. Woolf are enjoined and restrained from instituting any otherproceeding against Liberty Life with respect to the Policy;6. In the event that it is determined that any other person not yet joined as a party to thisaction may make a claim for, or be entitled to, the funds at issue in this matter, thatperson is joined and subjected to paragraph 5 of this Order;7. Liberty Life is fully and finally discharged from all liability under the relevant policy andDISMISSED from this action;8. Liberty Life shall be awarded its reasonable attorneys fees and costs from the policyproceeds pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g). Liberty Life shall file a Motion for AttorneysFees and Costs by September 24, 2015 and shall also file and email a proposed Order. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 9/11/2015. (jwt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
NORTHERN DIVISION
JUDY WOOLF,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC., a foreign
corporation; LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE
COMPANY OF BOSTON; SHAELA K.
WIGGINTON; and Jane Doe,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
REGARDING LIBERTY LIFE’S MOTION FOR
INTERPLEADER AND MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO DEPOSIT FUNDS
Case No. 1:14CV168 DAK
Defendants.
This matter is before the court on Defendant Liberty Life Assurance Company of
Boston’s (“Liberty Life”) Motion for Leave to Deposit Funds and its Motion for Interpleader. A
hearing on the motions was held on July 7, 2015 in conjunction with various other motions that
will be addressed in a separate Memorandum Decision and Order. At the hearing, Plaintiff
Judy Woolf was represented by Blake S. Atkin. Defendant Ms. Shaela Wigginton was
represented by Cole S. Cannon and Austin J. Hepworth. Liberty Life was represented by
Lindsay K. Nash. Before the hearing, the court carefully considered the memoranda and other
materials submitted by the parties. Since taking the matter under advisement, the court has
further considered the law and facts relating to the motion. Now being fully advised, the court
renders the following Memorandum Decision and Order.
Liberty Life has filed a Motion for Interpleader pursuant to Rule 22 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure to determine entitlement to certain life insurance proceeds payable by
reason of the death of Richard Wigginton, who was insured under a group life insurance policy
issued by Liberty Life to Nucor Corporation, Mr. Wigginton’s employer. Liberty Life stands
ready to pay said funds (in the amount of $180,000, plus accrued interest, if any) into the court
registry upon the court’s granting of Liberty Life’s Motion for Leave to Deposit Funds.
On or about October 22, 2012, Mr. Wigginton, the decedent in this action, designated
his mother, Judy Woolf (“Ms. Woolf”), as primary beneficiary for the group life and AD&D
benefits payable by the reason of his death. At that time, he designated his daughter,
Defendant Shaela Wigginton, as a contingent beneficiary.
In the spring of 2014, Mr. Wigginton was diagnosed with terminal cancer. On or about
October 3, 2014, he submitted a Change Form on which he designated Ms. Woolf and Ms.
Wigginton–his mother and his daughter– as primary beneficiaries, in equal shares, for the
group life and AD&D benefits payable by the reason of his death under the group life and
AD&D policy. He did not designate any contingent beneficiaries. Mr. Wigginton passed away
on November 10, 2014.
Within nine days of Mr. Wigginton’s death, Liberty Mutual Group, Inc.1 received a letter
from Ms. Woolf’s counsel, indicating that “any change to the listed beneficiary was done with
undue influence under Utah law and therefore may be invalid. Please do not pay this claim
until this issue is resolved.”2 On November 26, 2014, Liberty Mutual Group was served with a
1
Liberty Mutual is a separate entity and was not the issuer of the policy at issue. Ms.
Woolf subsequently dismissed Liberty Mutual, and the correct party, Liberty Life, was joined as
a Defendant. See Docket Nos. 26, 27, 40.
2
See November 19, 2014 Letter from Blake Atkin to Liberty Mutual, Docket No. 38-5.
2
Summons and Complaint which had been filed by Ms. Woolf on November 24, 2014, in the
District Court in and for Box Elder County, Utah. The case was later removed to the United
States Court for the District of Utah.
Ms. Wigginton has opposed the instant motions, arguing that it does not make sense
for Liberty Life to deposit the funds before her motion to dismiss is decided and that if she
does not prevail on her motion to dismiss, she might add a cross-claim against Liberty for
acting in bad faith for not paying out the proceeds to her.
Ms. Woolf’s lawsuit against Liberty Life and Ms. Wigginton’s opposition to its motions
reflect that Liberty Life is subject to conflicting claims and potential liability concerning
entitlement to the funds at issue in this matter. It is clear that if Liberty Life were to prefer
one potential claimant over the other, it could face multiple and vexatious litigation. Liberty
Life has incurred no independent liability to any of the adverse claimants, and it did not create
the situation that has caused the conflicting claims. Liberty Life simply seeks to have the
adverse claimants resolve their respective claims to entitlement to these funds. In other
words, Liberty Life is an innocent stakeholder that claims no beneficial interest in the funds at
issue in this matter. Accordingly, the court grants its Motion for Interpleader and Motion to
Deposit Funds.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
Liberty Life’s Motion for Interpleader [Docket No. 38] is GRANTED;
2.
Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston’s Motion for Leave to Deposit Funds [Docket
No. 37] is GRANTED;
3
3.
Liberty Life shall deposit the sum of $180,000.00, plus any applicable accrued interest,
into the Court registry;
4.
The funds shall be deposited by the Clerk of Court into an interest-bearing account;
5.
Ms. Wigginton and Ms. Woolf are enjoined and restrained from instituting any other
proceeding against Liberty Life with respect to the Policy;
6.
In the event that it is determined that any other person not yet joined as a party to this
action may make a claim for, or be entitled to, the funds at issue in this matter, that
person is joined and subjected to paragraph 5 of this Order;
7.
Liberty Life is fully and finally discharged from all liability under the relevant policy and
DISMISSED from this action;
8.
Liberty Life shall be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from the policy
proceeds pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g). Liberty Life shall file a Motion for Attorneys’
Fees and Costs by September 24, 2015 and shall also file and email a proposed Order.
DATED this 11th day of September, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge
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?