Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-1574 civilDEBRA BECKER, Plaintiff Vo FEDERAL KEMPER LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY and JEFFREY SMITH, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 2000-1574 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL ACTION- LAW IN RE: PETITION FOR INTERPLEADER FILED BY DEFENDANT FEDERAL KEMPER LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BEFORE GUIDO, J. AND NOW, this OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT /)4~ day of JANUARY, 2001, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying opinion the Petition for Interpleader filed by defendant Federal Kemper Life Assurance Company is GRANTED. We will enter an appropriate order and attach it to the petition for interpleader. Counsel for Defendant Kemper is directed to follow through to make sure that service is effectuated without undue delay. Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Edward E. Guido, J. Robert E. Kelly, Jr., Esquire John P. Shusted, Esquire Gregory S. Capps, Esquire :sld DEBRA BECKER Vo FEDERAL KEMPER LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY and JEFFREY SMITH · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : · NO. 2000-1574 CIVIL TERM : : : : : IN RE: PETITION FOR INTERPLEADER FILED BY DEFENDANT FEDERAL KEMPER LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BEFORE GUIDO, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Plaintiff instituted this action to recover the proceeds of an insurance policy on the life of her deceased husband. Defendant Federal Kemper Life Assurance Company (hereinafter Kemper) has filed a petition to interplead Richard Becker, Jr., the son of plaintiff's deceased husband by a prior marriage and the previous beneficiary on the life insurance policy. Answers in opposition to the petition were filed by plaintiff and co- defendant Smith. The parties Conducted discovery and filed a stipulation of facts. Briefs were filed and argument was held. At the request of the parties, additional briefs were filed and at the request of the Court, supplemental argument was held. This matter is now ready for disposition. FACT[JAL BACKGROUND On December 13, 1995, Richard A. Becker applied for a policy of life insurance through defendant Smith who is an independent agent authorized by defendant Kemper to take application for insurance. Shortly thereafter, Defendant Kemper issued the instant NO. 2000-1574 CIVIL life insurance policy to Richard A. Becker. The original named beneficiary was his then wife, Teri A. Becker. On March 18, 1999, Richard A. Becker executed a change of beneficiary form in the office of defendant Smith. The change replaced his former wife Teri A. Becker (now Teri Dougherty) with his eighteen year old son, Richard A. Becker, Jr. The change in beneficiary was recorded by Kemper on April 14, 1999, with an effective date of March 18, 1999. This was done in accordance with the terms of the policy which provides' Beneficiary Change - Unless otherwise provided by request, you may change the beneficiary while this policy is in force ..... The change becomes effective when we record it. Once recorded, the effective date is the date the request was signed. The change is subject to any proceeds paid or other action taken by us before the change was recorded.~ On November 3, 1999, Richard A. Becker again went to the office of defendant Smith to execute a change of beneficiary form. The form was properly completed and validly executed. It named his new wife, Debra Becker (plaintiff herein) as the sole beneficiary. Richard A. Becker died on November 11, 1999. On November 16, 1999, defendant Smith sent the following letter to Kemper: Dear Sirs, Richard Becker contacted me on November 1, 1999. We discussed his job transfer and his new marriage. He was very concerned about making sure his beneficiary was changed before he moved to California. We made arrangements for him to come to our office and sign the change form on November 3, as he and Debra were scheduled to leave on Friday, November 5, 1999 for California. Today we received a phone call from Debra Becker informing us of the death of Richard. When we went to pull the file we discovered it had been misplaced and upon finding the file we realized the original beneficiary change form was in the file. Upon finding the form we immediately faxed it to you. Stipulation of Facts- Exhibit A, p. 7. lqO. 2000-1574 CIVIL It is our opinion that as an agent for Kemper and the fact that we had a witnessed & signed form the intent was there and should be carried out as Richard requested. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Jeffrey B. Smith2 On November 19, 1999, Kemper sent claim forms to Teri Dougherty (on behalf of decedent's son) and defendant Smith (on behalf of plaintiff). On December 17, 1999, plaintiff made a claim on the policy and submitted all of the paperwork necessary for it to be processed and paid. On February 2, 2000, Kemper called Richard Becker, Jr. to ask whether he intended to make a claim under the policy. On February 3, 2000, Kemper sent a second set of claim forms directly to Richard A. Becker, Jr. On that same date, it sent a letter to plaintiffs' counsel acknowledging receipt of the change of beneficiary form on November 16, 1999. Kemper further indicated that it did not record the form because it wa~ not "received during the lifetime of the insured.''3 On March 3, 2000, Richard A. Becker, Jr. submitted a claim form to Kemper. Plaintiff commenced this action on March 16, 2000. The petition for interpleader was filed by Kemper on April 13, 2000. DISCUSSION Interpleader is a procedural mechanism through which adverse claimants to money, property or debt may be required to litigate their claims in one proceeding. Lewandowski v, Life Insurance Co. of North America, 415 Pa. Super. 215,608 A.2d 108 (1992). It is essentially an equitable remedy designed to avoid exposing the defendant to 2 Stipulation of Facts- Exhibit E. 3 Stipulation of Facts, Exhibit I. Kemper has not come forward with any reason under the policy, or in law, as to why the death of the insured would prohibit it from recording a valid change of beneficiary. NO. 2000-1574 CIVIL multiple suits'or multiple liability on the same claim. /d. In the instant case, we recognize that defendant Kemper may be faced with two claimants under the same life insurance policy. However, it finds itself in this situation solely because of the actions or inactions of its own agents and/or employees. Therefore, we feel that the equities would dictate against granting the petition for interpleader.4 Kemper's dilemma is solely of its own making. The parties concede that the insured properly executed a change of beneficiary form at the office of an independent agent authorized by Kemper to accept it. The form was submitted to Kemper on November 16, 1999. Neither plaintiff nor her deceased husband are in any way responsible for the fact that it was submitted five days after the insured's death, and almost two weeks after it had been executed. Furthermore, once the change of beneficiary was received by Kemper, its employees refused to record it, even though its validity has never been questioned.5 Therefore, while the possibility exists that Kemper may be subject to liability to two claimants under the policy, it has no one to blame but itself. Pa. Rule of Civil Procedure 2306 provides in relevant part as follows' (a) The court shall direct an interpleader if the petition is in conformity with these rules and the allegations thereof are established either by proof or by the failure of the plaintiff to file a sufficient answer; but the court may deny the petition if the defendant 4 For instance, Kemper has requested the award of counsel fees, which its counsel claims are mandatory if the petition is granted. See 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 2503. In view of the actions of Kemper and its agents, this would be patently unfair. 5 Pursuant to the policy language quoted above, the change of beneficiary form is effective when received, retroactive to the date it was executed. In this case, the effective date of the change of beneficiary should have been November 3, 1999. NO. 2000-1574 CIVIL (2) has admitted the claim of, or subjected himself or herself to independent liability to, the plaintiff or any claimant, with knowledge that an inconsistent claim would be later asserted against him or her by any known or unknown person. In the instant case, it would appear that the petition should be denied on the basis that Kemper has subjected itself to independent liability to the plaintiff or claimant. However, the facts in Lewandowski, supra, are virtually identical to those in the case at bar. In Lewandowski the trial judge denied interpleader on the basis that the insurance company had subjected itself to independent liability. The Superior Court reversed, holding that the trial court had abused its discretion in failing to allow interpleader. We are unable to distinguish the Lewandowski case in any meaningful way from the case before us. Therefore, we are bound by that case and must grant the interpleader.6 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 12TM day of JANUARY., 2001, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying opinion the Petition for Interpleader filed by defendant Federal Kemper Life Assurance Company is GRANTED. We will enter an appropriate order and attach it to the petition for interpleader. Counsel for Defendant Kemper is directed to follow through to make sure that service is effectuated without undue delay. Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire By the Court, Robert E. Kelly, Jr., Esquire John P. Shusted, Esquire /s/Edward E. Guido Edward E. Guido, J. Gregory S. Capps, Esquire 6 The only possible distinction is that the competing claims in Lewandowski arose, at least in part, because of the alleged improper actions of the plaintiff. However, this is a distinction without a difference. DEBRA BECKER, Plaintiff Vo FEDERAL KEMPER LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY and JEFFREY SMITH, Defendants · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · NO. 2000-1574 CIVIL TERM · CIVIL ACTION- LAW INTERPLEADER ORDER AND NOW, this 12TM day of JANUARY, 2001, the Petition of Federal Kemper Life Assurance Company is granted and Richard A. Becker, Jr. is added to the record as a party plaintiff and enjoined from commencing or further prosecuting any action in any Court against Federal Kemper Life Assurance Company to enforce in whole or in part any claim against it set forth in said Petition, except as a party to the above entitled action. NOW, therefore, we command you, the Sheriff of the County of Cumberland, to direct the claimant, Richard A. Becker, Jr., 115 Colebrook Road, Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, 17022, to file in the above entitled action in the office of the Prothonotary of Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas a complaint within twenty (20) days after being served with copies of the petition for interpleader and this order and all pleadings heretofore filed in the above entitled action if said service was made within your county, or within thirty (30) days of said service if said service was made within any other county of this Commonwealth. 2000-1574 CIVIL ACTION- LAW By the Edward E. Guido, J. Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Robert E. Kelly, Jr., Esquire John P. Shusted, Esquire Gregory S. Capps, Esquire 'sld