Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Jacques v. Jacques

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

February 2, 2017

KRISTEN JACQUES, KARA JACQUES, and THE ESTATE OF JOHN JACQUES, Plaintiffs,
v.
SHERYL JACQUES, Defendant. SHERYL JACQUES, Counterclaim Plaintiff,
v.
KRISTEN JACQUES, KARA JACQUES, and THE ESTATE OF JOHN JACQUES, Counterclaim Defendants.

          ORDER

          VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This cause comes before the Court pursuant to Sheryl Jacques' Motion for Prejudgment Interest (Doc. # 86), which was filed on December 21, 2016. As stated in the Motion, Kara Jacques and Kristen Jacques join in the request for prejudgment interest. At the direction of the Court, Prudential Insurance Company of America filed a Response in Opposition on January 10, 2017. (Doc. # 92). For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the Motion.[1]

         I. Background

         When John Jacques passed away on October 12, 2015, he was covered by two life insurance policies issued by Prudential. On April 25, 2016, John's ex-wife, Sheryl, filed an ERISA complaint against Prudential in state court seeking payment of life insurance benefits under one of the two insurance policies - the Basic Term Life Policy. (Doc. # 2). On May 24, 2016, Prudential removed the action to this Court based on a federal question - the ERISA life insurance policy - and, in the alternative, diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. # 1).

         Prudential demonstrated that interpleader relief was appropriate by indicating it was a neutral stakeholder, ready, willing, and able to disburse insurance proceeds, but not certain as to the identity of the appropriate beneficiary or beneficiaries and possibly subject to duplicate liability due to said uncertainty. Prudential identified John's adult children, Kristen and Kara, as putative insurance beneficiaries, and after some investigation, verified that a second life insurance policy, the Group Universal Life Policy (the GUL Policy), also covered John. The parties represent that the Basic Term Life Policy is an ERISA policy and that the GUL Policy is a non-ERISA policy.

         At the Court's direction, Prudential deposited the proceeds of the Basic Term Life Policy ($85, 000) and the GUL Policy ($119, 041.35) into the Court's registry. (Doc. ## 75, 76). In an Order dated November 2, 2016, the Court granted a broad release to Prudential:

[O]nce Prudential has deposited all funds in question into the Court's Registry, it shall be dismissed from this action with prejudice. Upon the deposit of the insurance proceeds for both the Basic Term Life Policy and the GUL Policy, Prudential and its present and former parents, subsidiaries and affiliated corporations, predecessors, successors and assigns and their respective officers, directors, agents, employees, representatives, attorneys, fiduciaries, and administrators shall be released and discharged from any and all liability to Sheryl Jacques, Kristen Jacques, Kara Jacques, and the Estate with respect to the Basic Term Life Policy and the GUL Policy.
In addition, once the deposit of the funds has been made, Sheryl Jacques, Kristen Jacques, Kara Jacques, the Estate, and/or any past, present or future persons, representatives or conservators on their behalf, are permanently enjoined from bringing any action or proceeding in any forum, or making any further actual or implied claims, demands, causes of action asserted or unasserted, liquidated or unliquidated, against Prudential arising out of or in connection with the Basic Term Life Policy or the GUL Policy.

(Doc. # 74 at 18)(emphasis added).

         On December 19, 2016, the Court was notified that Sheryl, Kara, and Kristen reached a settlement regarding the distribution of all life insurance proceeds. (Doc. # 83). The Court directed the parties to file a stipulation “includ[ing] direction regarding disbursement of the funds held in the Court's registry.” (Id.).

         Before providing the Court with any information about the parties' agreement as to distribution of the insurance proceeds, Sheryl filed the instant Motion seeking prejudgment interest from October 12, 2015, the date of John's death, until November 10, 2016, the date that Prudential deposited the funds in the Court's registry. (Doc. # 86). In total, Sheryl seeks $10, 586.03 in prejudgment interest. Prudential opposes the Motion. (Doc. # 92).

         II. Analysis

         Prudential only “pays interest on life insurance death benefits where the applicable contract provides for the payment of interest and/or the applicable state statute requires that claim interest be paid.” (Id. at 2). Sheryl, Kristen, and Kara have not pointed to any language in either of the two insurance policies which can be construed as allowing for the payment of prejudgment interest. And, Prudential affirmatively represents that “none of the terms of either policy provide for the payment of interest on the death benefits.” (Id. at 2-3).

         Tellingly, in Flint v. ABB Inc., 337 F.3d 1326, 1329 (11th Cir. ...


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.