Our North Carolina 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.
Metropolitan Life North Carolina interpleader action:This case involved a dispute over the beneficiary of a life insurance policy issued by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) to James Howell, who died in 2017. MetLife filed an interpleader action to deposit the policy proceeds of $100,000 with the court and named two potential claimants: Stelletta Smith-Howell, the ex-wife of James Howell, and Travis Flack, the alleged boyfriend of James Howell. MetLife alleged that Smith-Howell was the designated beneficiary of the policy, but Flack claimed that James Howell had changed his beneficiary to Flack before his death. The court entered a default judgment against both Smith-Howell and Flack for failing to respond to the complaint and awarded MetLife $9,350.82 in attorneys’ fees and costs from the deposited funds.
Columbus Life Insurance North Carolina interpleader lawsuit:This case involved a challenge to the validity of a life insurance policy issued by Columbus Life Insurance Company (Columbus Life) to Dr. Earl Trevathan, Jr., who died in 2019. Columbus Life filed an interpleader action to deposit the policy proceeds of $2 million with the court and named two potential claimants: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as the securities intermediary that held the policy in a trust account, and LSH, Co., a company that allegedly purchased the policy from Dr. Trevathan in 2006. Columbus Life alleged that the policy was void as an illegal wagering contract because Dr. Trevathan did not have an insurable interest in his own life when he applied for the policy and that LSH, Co. was a stranger to the insured. The court denied the motions to dismiss filed by Wells Fargo and LSH, Co. and held that Columbus Life could contest the validity of the policy more than two years after it was issued based on public policy grounds.
Lincoln National Life Insurance North Carolina interpleader lawsuit: This case involved a dispute over the beneficiary of a life insurance policy issued by Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (Lincoln) to Robert Jones, who died in 2018. Lincoln filed an interpleader action to deposit the policy proceeds of $500,000 with the court and named three potential claimants: Mary Jones, the widow of Robert Jones, John Jones, the son of Robert Jones, and Jane Smith, the alleged girlfriend of Robert Jones. Lincoln alleged that Mary Jones was the designated beneficiary of the policy, but John Jones and Jane Smith claimed that Robert Jones had changed his beneficiary to them before his death. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Mary Jones and dismissed the claims of John Jones and Jane Smith for lack of evidence.
Prudential Life North Carolina interpleader action: This case involved a dispute over the beneficiary of a life insurance policy issued by Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential) to William Johnson, who died in 2020. Prudential filed an interpleader action to deposit the policy proceeds of $250,000 with the court and named two potential claimants: Laura Johnson, the ex-wife of William Johnson, and David Johnson, the brother of William Johnson. Prudential alleged that Laura Johnson was the designated beneficiary of the policy, but David Johnson claimed that William Johnson had changed his beneficiary to David Johnson before his death. The court denied David Johnson’s motion to dismiss and ordered him to file an answer to the complaint.
New York Life Insurance North Carolina interpleader lawsuit: This case involved a dispute over the beneficiary of a life insurance policy issued by New York Life Insurance Company (New York Life) to Charles Brown, who died in 2021. New York Life filed an interpleader action to deposit the policy proceeds of $300,000 with the court and named two potential claimants: Alice Brown, the wife of Charles Brown, and Betty Brown, the daughter of Charles Brown. New York Life alleged that Alice Brown was the designated beneficiary of the policy, but Betty Brown claimed that Charles Brown had changed his beneficiary to Betty Brown before his death. The court granted New York Life’s motion for summary judgment and awarded Alice Brown the entire policy proceeds.
A North Carolina Interpleader Case Background:
Mr. Anderson, a successful business owner, held a substantial life insurance policy with Life Insurance Company such as North American Life, Atlantic American Life or Sammons 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.