Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Om Financial Life Insurance Co. v. Helton

September 27, 2010



This is an interpleader action involving a dispute over $150,000.00 in death benefits from a life insurance policy ("Policy") administered by plaintiff OM Financial Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed this action in response to actual or potential competing claims to entitlement from defendants. Plaintiff now moves (1) to discharge plaintiff from further liability under the Policy to defendants and to dismiss plaintiff from this action with prejudice; (2) to permanently enjoin defendants from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding against plaintiff in state or federal court relating to the Policy benefits or Policy; (3) to award plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs from the Policy benefits deposited with the court; and (4) for defendants to bear their own attorneys' fees and costs.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

In December of 2003, plaintiff's predecessor*fn1 issued life insurance policy number L0038577 to Catherine M. Helton ("insured" or "decedent"). (Compl. ¶ 12, Ex. A, at 3.) Defendant Michael W. Helton ("Helton"), who was allegedly the insured's husband at the time, was named as the primary beneficiary of the Policy. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 16, Ex. B.) On or about December 4, 2008, plaintiff received a Request for Service, dated December 3, 2008, from the insured to change her primary beneficiaries to defendants Casey Ozuna, Deanna Ozuna, and Christina Ozuna ("Ozuna children"), who are allegedly the insured's children. (Id. ¶ 14.)

On or about January 2, 2009, plaintiff received a letter from Helton indicating the insured had died on December 10, 2008, and providing a copy of the Death Certificate. (Id. ¶ 14.) Helton informed plaintiff that he believed Tony Ozuna, the insured's former husband, had caused the Death Certificate to falsely indicate that the decedent was divorced. (Id. ¶ 16.) According to Helton, the divorce proceedings were still pending at the time of death. (Id. ¶ 16.) Helton's counsel informed plaintiff that the insured had filed for divorce on November 8, 2008, and under California law she was prohibited from changing her beneficiary designation at that time. (Id. ¶ 17.) Helton's counsel claimed entitlement to the benefits of the Policy for Helton and requested that plaintiff refrain from making any payment. (Id. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff's counsel has also spoken with the Ozuna children on "numerous occasions" and they confirmed that they claim entitlement to the benefits under the Policy. (Jain Decl. (Docket No. 17) ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff claims no interest in the Policy benefits and is willing to pay the Policy benefits to the person or persons legally entitled to them; plaintiff has not paid the Policy benefits because of the risks in determining itself which actual or potential competing claims are valid. (Compl. ¶ 21.) Plaintiff alleges that no out-of-court resolution of the competing claims is possible and no independent agreement has been reached by defendants. (Id. ¶¶ 18-19.)

To avoid multiple liability or multiple litigation, plaintiff filed its Complaint for Interpleader and Declaratory Relief on July 17, 2009, and deposited the $150,000.00 in Policy benefits, totaling $152,833.76 with accrued interest, with the court. (Id. ¶ 23; Pl.'s Mem. (Docket No. 17) 4:23-24.)

II. Discussion

An interpleader action allows the stakeholder of money to sue various claimants to force them to litigate who is entitled to the money. Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1992). Interpleader's primary purpose is to protect the stakeholder from multiple liability and the expense of multiple litigation, not to compensate the stakeholder. See Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Bayona, 223 F.3d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that interpleader is governed by equitable principles).

Procedurally, an interpleader action consists of two stages: First, the court determines whether the requirements for "rule interpleader" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 or "statutory interpleader" under the Federal Interpleader Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1335, 1397, 2361, have been met. Second, the court determines the respective rights of the adverse claimants. See Mack v. Kuckenmeister, Nos. 09-15290, 09-15291, 2010 WL 2853881, at *9 (9th Cir. July 22, 2010) (citing Rhoades v. Casey, 196 F.3d 592 (5th Cir. 1999)).

Rule interpleader provides that "[p]ersons with claims that may expose a plaintiff to double or multiple liability may be joined as defendants and required to interplead." Fed. R. Civ. P. 22(a)(1). The court's subject matter jurisdiction over a rule interpleader action must be based on the general statutes governing jurisdiction. Bayona, 223 F.3d at 1033.

District courts also have jurisdiction to hear statutory interpleader actions in which (1) the value of the stake is $500.00 or more, (2) at least two adverse claimants of diverse citizenship are claiming or may claim to be entitled to the stake, and (3) the stakeholder has deposited the stake with the court. 28 U.S.C. § 1335(a).

Here, the court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to § 1332.*fn2 The Complaint alleges that plaintiff is a citizen of Maryland, incorporated and with its principal place of business in Maryland; Helton is a citizen of California; Deanna Ozuna is a citizen of California; Christina Ozuna is a citizen of California; and Casey Ozuna is a citizen of Alaska. (Compl. ¶¶ 1-5.) This action meets the jurisdictional amount in controversy of greater than $75,000.00 under § 1332 because the Policy benefits are $150,000.00, plus accrued interest. (Id. ¶ 8, Ex. A, at 3, Ex. B.)

Specific jurisdiction under § 1335 also exists. First, the amount in controversy far exceeds $500.00. Second, minimal diversity between adverse claimants is satisfied because Casey Ozuna is a citizen of Alaska and Helton is a citizen of California, and they are adverse claimants. (Id. ¶ 17; Jain Decl. ¶ 5.). Third, plaintiff has deposited the Policy benefits, plus accrued interest, with the court. (Compl. ¶ 23; Pl.'s Mem. 4:23-24.)

Plaintiff is subject to actual or potential adverse claims to the decedent's Policy benefits from Helton and the Ozuna children. Accordingly, the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.