Esford v. Hartford Life Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, W.D. New York
• Decided: June 27, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00298
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

BRANDY ESFORD,

Plaintiff, 25-CV-298-LJV v. ORDER

HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

On February 4, 2025, the plaintiff, Brandy Esford, commenced this action against Hartford Life Insurance Company (“Hartford”) in New York State Supreme Court, Erie County. See Docket Item 1-1. Shortly after removing the case to this Court, Hartford brought a counterclaim for interpleader against Esford, Docket Item 8, and filed a third- party interpleader complaint, Docket Item 9, naming Esford’s two minor children, S.W. and P.W., as third-party defendants, id. Hartford says that the proceeds of two life insurance policies belong to Esford or to Esford and her minor children, and it asks the Court to decide to whom the proceeds belong. See id. at ¶¶ 9-47. S.W. and P.W. are both unrepresented in this action and, as third-party defendants, they have an interest in its outcome. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(2), “[t]he court must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). In light of the foregoing, and based on representations made by counsel for Esford during a status conference held on June 25, 2025, the Court finds that the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent S.W. and P.W. in this action is warranted.

ORDER Based on the above, it is hereby ORDERED that Thomas F. Hewner, Esq., is appointed to represent S.W. and

P.W. as guardian ad litem in this matter. The Court will notify Hewner of his selection and advise him to enter an appearance in the action; and it is further ORDERED that Hewner shall have the authority and duty to act on behalf of S.W. and P.W., as required by justice. See Garrick v. Weaver, 888 F.2d 687, 693 (10th Cir. 1989); Neilson v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 993 F. Supp. 225, 226-227 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), aff’d, 199 F.3d 642 (2d Cir. 1999); and it is further ORDERED that at the conclusion of this matter, Hewner may move this Court for the disbursement of reasonable fees and costs from the amount recovered in this matter.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2025 Buffalo, New York

/s/ Lawrence J. Vilardo LAWRENCE J. VILARDO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE