Our New York interpleader lawyers handle all life insurance interpleader cases and beneficiary disputes.
A life insurance interpleader case is a legal action that occurs when there are conflicting claims to the proceeds of a life insurance policy. The insurance company files an interpleader complaint with the court and deposits the policy proceeds with the court, asking the court to decide who is entitled to receive the money. The insurance company then names all the potential beneficiaries as defendants in the suit and is usually discharged from further liability.
Lincoln Life Insurance interpleader lawsuit: This case involved a dispute over the proceeds of a life insurance policy issued by Lincoln Life & Annuity Co. of N.Y. to Robert Caswell, who died in 2003. The policy had a face value of $1 million and named Caswell’s wife, Patricia, as the primary beneficiary and his daughter, Jennifer, as the contingent beneficiary. Patricia filed for divorce from Caswell in 2002 and obtained a temporary restraining order that prohibited Caswell from changing the beneficiary designation of the policy. However, Caswell allegedly changed the beneficiary designation to Jennifer in 2003, shortly before his death. Patricia claimed that the change was invalid and that she was entitled to the policy proceeds. Jennifer claimed that the change was valid and that she was entitled to the policy proceeds. Lincoln Life & Annuity Co. of N.Y. filed an interpleader action to deposit the policy proceeds with the court and avoid liability to either party. The court granted the interpleader and dismissed Lincoln Life & Annuity Co. of N.Y. from the case.
Sun Life Insurance interpleader: This case involved a dispute over the proceeds of a life insurance policy issued by Sun Life Ins. & Annuity Co. of N.Y. to Richard Braslow, who died in 2004. The policy had a face value of $500,000 and named Braslow’s wife, Barbara, as the primary beneficiary and his son, Michael, as the contingent beneficiary. Barbara filed for divorce from Braslow in 2003 and obtained a stipulation that required Braslow to maintain Barbara as the beneficiary of the policy until the divorce was finalized. However, Braslow allegedly changed the beneficiary designation to Michael in 2004, shortly before his death. Barbara claimed that the change was invalid and that she was entitled to the policy proceeds. Michael claimed that the change was valid and that he was entitled to the policy proceeds. Sun Life Ins. & Annuity Co. of N.Y filed an interpleader action to deposit the policy proceeds with the court and avoid liability to either party. The court granted the interpleader and dismissed Sun Life Ins. & Annuity Co. of N.Y from the case.
MetLife Life insurance interpleader: This case involved a dispute over the proceeds of a life insurance policy issued by Metropolitan Life Ins.Co to James McCormick, who died in 2018.The policy had a face value of $250,000 and named McCormick’s wife,Karen,as the primary beneficiary and his daughter,Ashley,as the contingent beneficiary.Karen filed for divorce from McCormick in 2017 and obtained a temporary order that prohibited McCormick from changing or disposing of any marital assets,including the policy.However,Mccormick allegedly changed the beneficiary designation to Ashley in 2018,a few days before his death.Karen claimed that the change was invalid and that she was entitled to the policy proceeds.Ashley claimed that the change was valid and that she was entitled to the policy proceeds.Metropolitan Life Ins.Co filed an interpleader action to deposit the policy proceeds with the court and avoid liability to either party.The court granted the interpleader and dismissed Metropolitan Life Ins.Co from the case.
New York Life Insurance Company interpleader: This case involved a dispute over the proceeds of a life insurance policy issued by New York Life Insurance Company to John Lee,who died in 2019.The policy had a face value of $100,000 and named Lee’s wife,Mary,as the primary beneficiary and his brother,Peter,as the contingent beneficiary.Mary and Peter had a strained relationship and accused each other of influencing Lee’s decisions regarding the policy.Mary claimed that Lee had intended to change the beneficiary designation to her alone,but was prevented by Peter’s interference.Peter claimed that Lee had intended to keep the beneficiary designation as it was,but was pressured by Mary’s demands.New York Life Insurance Company filed an interpleader action to deposit the policy proceeds with the court and avoid liability to either party.The court granted the interpleader and dismissed New York Life Insurance Company from the case.
A New York Interpleader Case Background:
Mr. Anderson, a successful business owner, held a substantial life insurance policy with Life Insurance Company such as New York Life, Connecticut Mutual Life or Talcott Resolution Life. Unfortunately, he passed away unexpectedly. The life insurance policy listed two potential beneficiaries: his sister, Lisa, and his business partner, Alex.
Beneficiary Dispute:
Both Lisa and Alex claimed to be the rightful beneficiary of the life insurance proceeds. Lisa argued that Mr. Anderson had verbally expressed his intention to make her the sole beneficiary, while Alex insisted that they had a written agreement that entitled him to the proceeds as a key person in the business.
Interpleader Claim Initiation:
In light of the conflicting claims, Life Insurance Company decided to file a life insurance interpleader claim in the appropriate court. They deposited the policy proceeds with the court and submitted the necessary documentation, naming Lisa and Alex as defendants in the interpleader action.
Court Proceedings:
The court would then summon Lisa and Alex to present their cases. Lisa would have the opportunity to provide any evidence supporting her claim, such as witness statements or any documentation suggesting Mr. Anderson’s verbal intent. On the other hand, Alex would present the written agreement and argue that it supersedes any verbal communication.
Resolution:
The court, in its role as a neutral party, would evaluate the evidence presented by both parties. The goal is to determine the rightful beneficiary of the life insurance proceeds. If the court cannot definitively decide, the funds deposited by Life Insurance Company would be distributed equitably or as determined by the court.
Conclusion:
Life insurance interpleader claims are essential in cases of beneficiary disputes, ensuring a fair and impartial resolution while protecting the insurance company from potential legal repercussions. This hypothetical scenario illustrates the complexity and importance of such interpleader claims in navigating beneficiary conflicts.